Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
Yet Leave's campaign, which was equally risible, has received little panning from Conservatives since the result.
This thread just shows that hardcore Conservative leavers - the bedfellows of the bastards - care less for democracy than they pretend.
The Leave campaign didn't flout the spending limits, for a start.
So lies are fine, as long as you win? Remainers have just as much reason to feel aggrieved about the way the leave campaigns were conducted as leavers have about remain's. Yet they have mostly shut up.
Do you think leave's means justify the end?
Lies during a campaign are inevitable and both sides were at it.
Flouting the campaign spending limits to rig the result aren't, and only one side was at it.
So lies are okay in your eyes. Cool. The means justify the end.
At least we know where we stand.
OK? No. But inevitable, so I'm not going to waste time worrying about them - especially when both sides were at it roughly equally.
But you seem to be OK with Cameron attempting to rig the result by flouting the spending limits - can you explain why?
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne.
No chance.
If they'd won the right way, then yes. But after the way they conducted the campaign? Nah.
THE big lie of the referendum campaign was £350million/week to the NHS. The 2nd one was Turkey.
How can Turkey be a lie when it is, and has been, UK government policy to support Turkey joining (at the request of the US)?
The voters were meant to deduce (and it is an open secret) that the government was lying about supporting Turkish membership.
But maybe, now that we're leaving, we do support Turkish accession. That'd screw the EU royally. The UK's basic foreign policy remains unaltered after 500 years. It is fundamentally not in our national interest to see a single European power dominate our continent.
Ok, let's have a Parliamentary vote on Article 50.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Parliament's already had a vote. Not sure what part of that you're struggling to understand here.
He wants them to have another vote, because he can't get his head round the fact that the majority of the public were against him, so he wants democracy to be overturned.
On topic, I hope the American Guardian correspondent from Wading River is happy we've now addressed his point about selling out our sovereignty to Brussels and Berlin.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Yes, I think that's fair, though I would deliver it by way of an English Parliament which sits in Lancaster.
Ah, so you're talking about something different to what I'm talking about.
You said ministers could no longer bypass Parliament to introduce new legislation. You were wrong. Apart from that...
The "Great Repeal Act" is about existing legislation.
And its terms can then be changed by statutory instrument, can't it? So, for example, under EU law the copyright term for literary works is life of author plus 70 years. On the day we leave the EU that will be our law. But to change that term to life plus 100 years will not need a new act of parliament and the scrutiny that comes with it, but a statutory instrument only. Perhaps a simple vote in the Commons could override that, but with the executive much more powerful in a chamber of 600 rather than 650 how likely is that to happen?
Ok, let's have a Parliamentary vote on Article 50.
NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Parliament's already had a vote. Not sure what part of that you're struggling to understand here.
He wants them to have another vote, because he can't get his head round the fact that the majority of the public were against him, so he wants democracy to be overturned.
Its really not worth it, he isnt actually listening to anything anyone else posts here, especially people who are pointing out that he is talking complete bollocks. Its rather like a reverse call centre operator, he is just going to down his script pasting in the message of the day regardless of what anyone actually says.
More gloom: Boom! Britain’s building sector had surged back to growth, new data shows.
In the latest sign that the Brexit vote has not hurt the economy, the monthly construction PMI has leapt to 52.3 in September, up from 49.2 in August.
That’s much stronger than expected. It means activity in the sector increased last month, at the fastest rate since March (any reading over 50 = shows growth).
Markit, which compiles the report, says that residential housebuilding drove the recovery. There was also a welcome pick-up in new orders, after four months of “sustained decline”
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Yes, I think that's fair, though I would deliver it by way of an English Parliament which sits in Lancaster.
Not sure about Lancaster, but an English parliament created after a full UK constitutional convention sounds like a great idea to me. We need a settlement that everyone buys into and is endorsed by voters so that we can move on as a country (or as countries).
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Yes, I think that's fair, though I would deliver it by way of an English Parliament which sits in Lancaster.
Lancaster? Why there? Restarting the wars of the Roses doesn't seem a good idea to me. Winchester, the old royal city, would seem a much better place except I quite like it and wouldn't want it spoiled. So I think Birmingham is probably the best location for an English Parliament.
Why do all Brexiteers assume Parliament would vote against the will of the people?
"Parliament must have a vote. Unless we we think we might not like the vote..."
Do you want Parliament to vote on things or not? Make your bloody mind up
Now you are really making stuff up. No one said anything about parliament voting on anything, BrExitters want decisions made in the elected government of the UK who they can throw out if they make the wrong decision. Last time I looked Mrs May was elected, all the members of the government were elected, the constitutional process that has existed for decades is being followed.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
Well, the Brexiteer line is that our Parliament should make our decisions*.
*Apart from ones they don't like
But I ask again, on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Parliament could have voted against staging a referendum. Once Parliament voted in favour, they were deferring the decision to the voters as a whole.
The Conservative manifesto also said that the choice would be ours and a Conservative government would respect what we decided and implement the outcome.
The Conservatives got a majority. An Act of Parliament enabling the referendum was passed. Leave got a majority.
Therefore the mandate is clear, and, even if a pointless parliamentary vote were held, Conservative MPs are obliged to vote for Brexit accordingly.
The government now needs to exercise an article of what is already existing statute and has been since 2008. No new statute is necessary since Parliament approved it 7 years ago and then last year gave a decision to the nation that the government now respects.
I also worry at the continued insistence that the government has the right to trigger the Article 50 Brexit process without the approval of the House of Commons. This statement is entirely contrary to the constitutional principles that have evolved in the last century on major changes to international treaties. Irrespective of the outcome of the legal challenges to the lawfulness of such a process, it is a flagrant breach of an established constitutional convention, which in a country with no written constitution Conservatives have always stressed the importance of observing.
Can you point me to the location of Article 50 in UK law ? Thanks.
You mean it was never debated in Parliament?
Bit off script there...
I means its European Law which isnt debated in parliament WHICH IS THE WHOLE F*CKING POINT.
To the extent that Lisbon was ratified by parliament, parliament has already assented to the process as laid down in Article 50.
To the extent that parliament passed the referendum act and the act ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without any amendment to transfer the prerogative from parliament for activating A50, a step parliament has previously taken with other prerogatives it cared about, that has been agreed by parliament as well.
Why do all Brexiteers assume Parliament would vote against the will of the people?
"Parliament must have a vote. Unless we we think we might not like the vote..."
Do you want Parliament to vote on things or not? Make your bloody mind up
The only reason that bad loser Remainers want another vote in Parliament is because they want to overturn the democratic decision of the people. @david_herdson has already eloquently explained what a terrible idea making Parliament vote again about this is.
Why do all Brexiteers assume Parliament would vote against the will of the people?
"Parliament must have a vote. Unless we we think we might not like the vote..."
Do you want Parliament to vote on things or not? Make your bloody mind up
Now you are really making stuff up. No one said anything about parliament voting on anything, BrExitters want decisions made in the elected government of the UK who they can throw out if they make the wrong decision. Last time I looked Mrs May was elected, all the members of the government were elected, the constitutional process that has existed for decades is being followed.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
Well, the Brexiteer line is that our Parliament should make our decisions*.
*Apart from ones they don't like
But I ask again, on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
Not scared at all. Treating Parliament as a rubber stamp would be to hold it in contempt.
Can you point me to the location of Article 50 in UK law ? Thanks.
You mean it was never debated in Parliament?
Bit off script there...
It was. It is existing legislation and not new legislation. Parliament should vote on changes to legislation, there is no legislative change here just existing legislation getting exercised.
Nobody in their right mind ever proposed that Parliament should vote on every single exercise of existing legislation. Should we get Parliament to pass a vote on whether my local hospital is open tomorrow or not, or should it just be open as the legislation for it is already on the books?
I have to admit May was very good on Radio 5 this morning. She carries a believability and conviction, a no nonsense manner, and is an easy communicator. I thought she might have been strategising and playing politics on the grammar school front- she was hopeless at defending it in the commons.
I might well be wrong. She may well be a conviction politician that wants to make Britain a fairer place. Her stance on Brexit- showing her hand on Article 50- suggests that she wants to play it with a straight bat.
I'll give her more time before I come to an opinion.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
The Queen in Parliament is sovereign, not parliament itself.
So why are Brexiteers whining about Sovereignty? That doesn't change whether we are in or out of the EU
I don't know, I am not one of them. But I should have said "The Queen in Parliament is sovereign, except insofar as that principle is modified by membership of the EU".
SNP sources last night accepted Westminster would have the last word on Brexit, saying Ms Sturgeon “has never threatened to veto Brexit”, although it had been misreported that way.
SNP ministers last year failed to scupper the Tories’ Trade Union Bill via an LCM after Westminster said a vote by MSPs was not required and Holyrood’s Presiding Officer agreed.
It was. It is existing legislation and not new legislation. Parliament should vote on changes to legislation, there is no legislative change here just existing legislation getting exercised.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
Had REMAIN won, the Conservatives would have united behind the victorious Cameron and Osborne. Cameron would likely have re-shuffled elements of the Government after his victory and then gone on a tour of European capitals and then off to Washington to thank everyone for their help and support.
To give them their due, the Conservatives are generally pragmatic about referenda results. After votes to set up the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the London Mayoralty, all of which the Conservatives opposed, there has been no commitment to reverse these referenda results.
Though I'm no Conservative, it's an attitude that does the Party credit and something other parties would do well to copy.
I don't think it would have been as smooth as that. Leaving the EU was a deep and burning desire for around a third of MPs, trumping anything else. A further third are naturally Eurosceptic but not bothered enough to do anything about it, at least not risk their career prospects by opposing the leadership. A sixth are Cameroons who back the EU but are still patriots and wouldn't have us sign up to the superstate or any kind of EU based military. The final sixth are the Soubrys and Clarks of rhe party, at least Ken had economic nouse, I don't see what Soubry brings to the party.
Reconciliation between the ultras and federalists is not going to be possible, but the federalists are a much smaller group and easier to ignore. If the federalists had won I don't see any position which would have brought the ultras back in from thr cold, especially after such a bruising campaign. A full third of the party, including a few big beasts, would have been in open revolt every single time an edict came down from the EU or ECJ that was disagreeable to the UK.
There was no party unity in remaining, not in the long term. In the short term everyone would have played happy families to beat Labour, but I don't think it would have lasted beyond 2020.
Our membership of the EU had become politically untenable in its current form. Short of either meaningful reform, or a Byzantine shift in public opinion, the issue wouldn't have gone away even if Remain narrowly had pipped the post.
I always got the impression Remain felt most people were just whinging about the EU, and not serious, and the issue could be put to bed for a generation just by seriously hard campaigning to secure a solid victory.
Treating Parliament as a rubber stamp would be to hold it in contempt.
You think denying Parliament a vote is a mark of respect?
The mental gymnastics from the Brexiteers this morning would be worthy of a medal if it was an Olympic sport.
Parliaments already voted to enact al relevant legislation so yes. Since we're not talking about new legislation but rather existing legislation, a new vote is moot.
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Yes, I think that's fair, though I would deliver it by way of an English Parliament which sits in Lancaster.
Not sure about Lancaster, but an English parliament created after a full UK constitutional convention sounds like a great idea to me. We need a settlement that everyone buys into and is endorsed by voters so that we can move on as a country (or as countries).
I see the clamour for English Votes for English Laws seems to have subsided since the Labour Party is now irrelevant (north and south of the border).
“Like one, that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread, And having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows, a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.”
Parliaments already voted to enact al relevant legislation so yes. Since we're not talking about new legislation but rather existing legislation, a new vote is moot.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
Yes. At the moment a politician who wants to pass a law which he can't get past the Commons can introduce it through the EU back door. After we Leave, he won't be able to.
He can get past the Commons with a statutory instrument. Which will be most of the new laws.
Apart from that, great point...
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
I think someone said on here that a reduction in MPs should also come with a reduction in cabinet and junior minister positions.
It won't though, will it?
IN fact, now that we are leaving Europe an entire level of legislative power will be removed from the UK's decision-making process. With our population rising as well, the rationale for a reduction in the number of MPs may be much less compelling than it was. We need a strong legislative branch even more than we did before.
Yes, I think that's fair, though I would deliver it by way of an English Parliament which sits in Lancaster.
Lancaster? Why there? Restarting the wars of the Roses doesn't seem a good idea to me. Winchester, the old royal city, would seem a much better place except I quite like it and wouldn't want it spoiled. So I think Birmingham is probably the best location for an English Parliament.
It was. It is existing legislation and not new legislation. Parliament should vote on changes to legislation, there is no legislative change here just existing legislation getting exercised.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
No it isn't, it is exercising a clause of a Treaty that Parliament approved already. Does Parliament vote on every exercise of every clause of Treaties that Parliament has already approved? No it does not.
The Lisbon Treaty isn't being changed at all, it is just getting a part of the Treaty exercised.
I also worry at the continued insistence that the government has the right to trigger the Article 50 Brexit process without the approval of the House of Commons. This statement is entirely contrary to the constitutional principles that have evolved in the last century on major changes to international treaties. Irrespective of the outcome of the legal challenges to the lawfulness of such a process, it is a flagrant breach of an established constitutional convention, which in a country with no written constitution Conservatives have always stressed the importance of observing.
My money on Clinton is looking safe. Assange has spent 10 minutes mumbling nonsense.
Another wikileaks mega announcement that comes to nothing. Assange is nothing more than a narcissistic fool. If he had any gumption he would just dump the whole lot onto the internet and let everyone have a look, this is just his latest attempt to feel important. The only good thing about this is how much it must be irritating his luvvie backers.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
I don't know why the Remainers in Denial are so hung up on process - surely their efforts would be best directed to securing the sort of BREXIT that keeps us as close to the EU as they would wish, than indulging in obstructionism, in the vain hope of stopping BREXIT happening, when all they are likely to do is increase the chances of a disorderly BREXIT, which would increase their chances of saying 'I told you so' - but at what cost to the country?
“Like one, that on a lonesome road Doth walk in fear and dread, And having once turned round walks on, And turns no more his head; Because he knows, a frightful fiend Doth close behind him tread.”
It's a'coming, and it's just behind you.
Turn, Scott P, and face your Nemesis.
Alternatively: "The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
I don't know why the Remainers in Denial are so hung up on process - surely their efforts would be best directed to securing the sort of BREXIT that keeps us as close to the EU as they would wish, than indulging in obstructionism, in the vain hope of stopping BREXIT happening, when all they are likely to do is increase the chances of a disorderly BREXIT, which would increase their chances of saying 'I told you so' - but at what cost to the country?
As a Remainer, I’m inclined to agree. IME it’s very rare that legal challenges of this sort work, and I can’t honestly see the Commons voting down the Referendum result. Might be a lot of abstainers, but.
My money on Clinton is looking safe. Assange has spent 10 minutes mumbling nonsense.
Another wikileaks mega announcement that comes to nothing. Assange is nothing more than a narcissistic fool. If he had any gumption he would just dump the whole lot onto the internet and let everyone have a look, this is just his latest attempt to feel important. The only good thing about this is how much it must be irritating his luvvie backers.
Giving he is now trying to hock his book I think the Luvvie money has dried up.
The debate opened: This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
If Tezza decides to hold a Parliamentary debate on Article 50, will the Brexiteers here still be crying TRAITOR, or will they be basking in the warm glow of Sovereignty?
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
Beyond that I think she is making a tactical error. Brexit won't be plain sailing. She is missing the opportunity to bind her MPs into whatever course of action her government takes. By saying, I don't trust you to make a decision, she is allowing them to opt out of the joint enterprise.
Morning all. Are people here in favour of Gatwick, Heathrow, or Heathrow Hub, or any combination thereof? I'm liking the cut of Heathrow Hub's gib at the moment (probably meaning they won't get the gig).
Certainly the sheer intensity of Heathrow's PR campaign both here on PB.com and elsewhere on the internet, suggests they are seriously worried about the outcome and probably also by Mrs May's delay in announcing a decision ..... many believed that a change of PM would finally bring this long running saga to a conclusion.
Heathrow are putting a lot of effort into their PR. They have even moved their head of PR into the Department of Transport to manage the government communications on transport matters including the third runway. You have to admire their chutzpah.
Simon Baugh, director of PR at Heathrow Airport, is moving to the Department for Transport to take up the role of group director of comms.
The turnaround in Colorado polling is astonishing. Vindicates the Dems pulling out resources a while ago. The 'fake' undecided were all clearly Dems waiting for a reason to vote Dem.
Colorado is done. Clinton has also pulled significant resources from Virginia which is no surprise either. She is effectively closing down Trump's path to 270.
Nevada, North Carolina and Florida are trending her way too. Pennsylvania looking increasingly out of reach for Donald.
FOP or bust for Trump .... looking presently like a big bust which he normally loves, but not this one ..
Will he quit in a fit of pique once he realises he's going to lose?
why would he quit when he's clearly winning?
A tweet I saw: Trump: "The good news is, it seems like we're up in Colorado..." Today's Monmouth poll has him down 11.
I also worry at the continued insistence that the government has the right to trigger the Article 50 Brexit process without the approval of the House of Commons. This statement is entirely contrary to the constitutional principles that have evolved in the last century on major changes to international treaties. Irrespective of the outcome of the legal challenges to the lawfulness of such a process, it is a flagrant breach of an established constitutional convention, which in a country with no written constitution Conservatives have always stressed the importance of observing.
And in how many of the cases from which that principle evolved, was the change something which had been voted on in a referendum? Precedents can only arise from previous cases on materially similar facts. This really is utterly pitiful stuff.
The debate opened: This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
Parliaments already voted to enact al relevant legislation so yes. Since we're not talking about new legislation but rather existing legislation, a new vote is moot.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
Let's say parliament voted, and voted down Article 50.
My money on Clinton is looking safe. Assange has spent 10 minutes mumbling nonsense.
Another wikileaks mega announcement that comes to nothing. Assange is nothing more than a narcissistic fool. If he had any gumption he would just dump the whole lot onto the internet and let everyone have a look, this is just his latest attempt to feel important. The only good thing about this is how much it must be irritating his luvvie backers.
You are a bit behind: his backers are now Putin and the Alt right. His support of Trump and well and truly put a nail in any other support he may have had.
I have to admit May was very good on Radio 5 this morning. She carries a believability and conviction, a no nonsense manner, and is an easy communicator. I thought she might have been strategising and playing politics on the grammar school front- she was hopeless at defending it in the commons.
I might well be wrong. She may well be a conviction politician that wants to make Britain a fairer place. Her stance on Brexit- showing her hand on Article 50- suggests that she wants to play it with a straight bat.
I'll give her more time before I come to an opinion.
That's a very fair minded and generous comment, Tyson.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
It does now. We've had enough referendums to prove the point.
I have to admit May was very good on Radio 5 this morning. She carries a believability and conviction, a no nonsense manner, and is an easy communicator. I thought she might have been strategising and playing politics on the grammar school front- she was hopeless at defending it in the commons.
I might well be wrong. She may well be a conviction politician that wants to make Britain a fairer place. Her stance on Brexit- showing her hand on Article 50- suggests that she wants to play it with a straight bat.
I'll give her more time before I come to an opinion.
That's a very fair minded and generous comment, Tyson.
Respect.
Who is posting on the Tyson account & what have they done with the real Tyson?
And it will be a Commons in which the executive is much more powerful than it is now anyway, thanks to the reduction in the number of MPs.
And it starts with Article 50.
As Dominic Grieve writes in The Times today, if the argument for Brexit is restoration of Parliamentary Sovereignty, why would you deny Parliament a vote on it?
Because parliament has delegated sovereignty - it can't give it away permanently.
The debate opened: This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
So that's a NO then.
QED
No, it's a Yes.
You asked, in the bit you snipped, "Can you point me to the Hansard entry [on Parliament voting on Article 50?]". Triggering Article 50 is the defined way of giving effect to us Leaving the EU as required by the people who Parliament gave the final say.
It was. It is existing legislation and not new legislation. Parliament should vote on changes to legislation, there is no legislative change here just existing legislation getting exercised.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
It has always been the Royal Prerogative to make and break treaties, if parliament wanted to change that it could, as it has with other prerogatives from time to time, it didn't, I fail to see what is hard to understand. Actually everyone can see you do understand, you just dont like it. Actually now, even that is too much, you just like arguing the toss about it.
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
My money on Clinton is looking safe. Assange has spent 10 minutes mumbling nonsense.
Another wikileaks mega announcement that comes to nothing. Assange is nothing more than a narcissistic fool. If he had any gumption he would just dump the whole lot onto the internet and let everyone have a look, this is just his latest attempt to feel important. The only good thing about this is how much it must be irritating his luvvie backers.
Chortle.
Still, it was a briefly entertaining moment seeing assorted Trumplings trying to accommodate Assange within their world view.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
It does now. We've had enough referendums to prove the point.
It's not about the result. It is about the implementation of the result. Parliament almost certainly will respect the result of the referendum and I hope they do. But that issue is up to parliament to resolve and not for the Prime Minister to say, I don't trust them so I am not going to allow them anywhere near. It's an important constitutional point.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
Beyond that I think she is making a tactical error. Brexit won't be plain sailing. She is missing the opportunity to bind her MPs into whatever course of action her government takes. By saying, I don't trust you to make a decision, she is allowing them to opt out of the joint enterprise.
Same as the debates on military intervention on Syria, Libya, etc. I also agree that it would be wrong and ludicrous for parliament to try to vote down anything Brexit-ish. But Tezza should go through the formality. There are rocky times ahead, as every side agrees, and the currency markets are illustrating. Better to have a parliamentary vote on your side as you sail into the unknown.
Interesting also, @Casino, that you say had Remain won, the issue wouldn't have gone away. All us ex-Remainers are doing is continuing to hold the government to account to ensure we obtain the best deal possible under the circumstances. It was all Nick Herbert was doing yesterday.
Thing is, when you have the three stooges in charge (a position, even with the London Mayorality, they are deeply unused to), no one can rely on them coming to a sane decision.
I have to admit May was very good on Radio 5 this morning. She carries a believability and conviction, a no nonsense manner, and is an easy communicator. I thought she might have been strategising and playing politics on the grammar school front- she was hopeless at defending it in the commons.
I might well be wrong. She may well be a conviction politician that wants to make Britain a fairer place. Her stance on Brexit- showing her hand on Article 50- suggests that she wants to play it with a straight bat.
I'll give her more time before I come to an opinion.
The trouble with comprehensive schools (and I don't care much about this subject) is that there is already selection, in that richer people live in better parts of the country and therefore have cleverer, better behaved children. Poor people are unable to move into those areas, and their kids are condemned to shit schools.
I live in the Valleys. I went to a very rough school. All boys; violent; crumbling buildings; lots of teachers who had given up the ghost years ago.
The school is (slightly) better now, certainly in terms of the buildings. But it is still rough and has a reputation, simply because of the catchment area.
I liked it. I was sporty and a bit of a lad and got away without too many severe beatings. I also had a 'good' (relative, of course) education, because i was lucky to be in the top classes where the better teachers taught. It was a cruel place for clever kids and nerds and non-sporting types though. There was (and still is, by all accounts) some severe bullying/fighting.
I'm sending my boy there. He's seven and he's like me. Sporty, likes a scrap, not particularly intelligent.
My boy is in a really, really good junior school (the one I went to). His class is freakishly bright, especially some of the girls. I've already heard parents (the wealthier ones) talking about moving to Cardiff or Monmouthshire ready for when their child gets to comprehensive age. Their children are delicate and sensitive. The school I went to will eat them alive. Their parents know that, they have the wealth to move, so they will.
The rest of us will be left behind.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest but I've no doubt that if grammars were in existence, then a) I would've past the 11-plus, b) my boy would pass the 11-plus and c) neither of us would've been condemned to bog-standard comp schools.
The debate opened: This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
So that's a NO then.
QED
No, it's a Yes.
You asked, in the bit you snipped, "Can you point me to the Hansard entry [on Parliament voting on Article 50?]". Triggering Article 50 is the defined way of giving effect to us Leaving the EU as required by the people who Parliament gave the final say.
You're drowning today.
Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
It is true though, if, in some alternate reality, UKIP won a majority in parliament and had a manifesto commitment to take us out of the EU without a vote, would that be legal? I'd have thought yes.
@Scott_P - had Remain won 52-48 would you be demanding a vote in parliament on triggering Article 50?
That's ludicrous. If Remain had won we wouldn't need to do anything. As Leave won we do need to work out what to do - you know the issues soft or hard Brexit, single market, EEA etc etc.
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
Parliaments already voted to enact al relevant legislation so yes. Since we're not talking about new legislation but rather existing legislation, a new vote is moot.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
Let's say parliament voted, and voted down Article 50.
What then?
We'd have a general election where Theresa May would win a landslide... And then trigger A50?
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
Chamberlain declared war on Germany under the Royal Prerogative, parliament was not asked. They clearly approved though as shortly there after they unanimously authorised the government to raise £500 million to fund the war.
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
It does now. We've had enough referendums to prove the point.
It's not about the result. It is about the implementation of the result. Parliament almost certainly will respect the result of the referendum and I hope they do. But that issue is up to parliament to resolve and not for the Prime Minister to say, I don't trust them so I am not going to allow them anywhere near. It's an important constitutional point.
I have said that before too
"This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017. "
It was. It is existing legislation and not new legislation. Parliament should vote on changes to legislation, there is no legislative change here just existing legislation getting exercised.
It's a major change to an International treaty, as Grieve points out.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
It has always been the Royal Prerogative to make and break treaties, if parliament wanted to change that it could, as it has with other prerogatives from time to time, it didn't, I fail to see what is hard to understand. Actually everyone can see you do understand, you just dont like it. Actually now, even that is too much, you just like arguing the toss about it.
Why the continuing argument on this ? Isn't their a case going through the courts which will settle this one way or another ?
ScottP What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
...on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
An idiot question. On the grounds that a majority of MPs are/were Remainers and might well screw the people to advance their own more informed and enlightened views. The people have had basically one shot at giving the political class two fingers on the EU in 40 years. In your heart of hearts you must know that this is not a runner.
We repeat ourselves on here. As I have said before, I think it's wrong for Theresa May to use a constitutional loophole to bypass the sovereignty of parliament. Our system is a parliamentary one. "The people" has no concept in the British constitution except where represented by parliament.
It does now. We've had enough referendums to prove the point.
It's not about the result. It is about the implementation of the result. Parliament almost certainly will respect the result of the referendum and I hope they do. But that issue is up to parliament to resolve and not for the Prime Minister to say, I don't trust them so I am not going to allow them anywhere near. It's an important constitutional point.
I have said that before too
More on this. Switzerland, which unlike the UK does have binding referendums, still requires parliament to actually implement them. We're seeing the difficulties they are having in squaring the circles of their 2014 EU Migration referendum, but parliament is very much the core of that SYSTEM.
Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
What do we want?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
It is true though, if, in some alternate reality, UKIP won a majority in parliament and had a manifesto commitment to take us out of the EU without a vote, would that be legal? I'd have thought yes.
Oh, that's certainly true. Parliament didn't need to refer the decision to the people, it could have taken the decision itself. But it didn't - it gave the people "the final say".
Exactly, Parliament has made the decision already. There is no vote in Parliament for every single exercise of every bit of legislation that Parliament has ALREADY PASSED.
What do we want?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
Parliament is sovereign here. Parliament passed Article 50 legislation into law in 2008. Parliament passed the Referendum Act in 2015.
Now a clause approved in the 2008 Act needs to be activated in response to the referendum. That is just government action, no new legislation is required as it has all already been passed.
@Charles Parliament has not delegated sovereignty. The referendum vote was advisory.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
Chamberlain declared war on Germany under the Royal Prerogative, parliament was not asked. They clearly approved though as shortly there after they unanimously authorised the government to raise £500 million to fund the war.
Indeed. But Tony Blair passed authorisation of the Iraq War to Parliament. The trend is towards the legitimacy of parliament and away from exectutive order on the Royal Prerogative. Quite right too! I assume Theresa May can get away with bypassing parliament on a legal loophole. What you can get away isn't necessarily what you should do.
Comments
But you seem to be OK with Cameron attempting to rig the result by flouting the spending limits - can you explain why?
Thanks
Article 50 is existing legislation that Parliament has approved twice already.
Boom! Britain’s building sector had surged back to growth, new data shows.
In the latest sign that the Brexit vote has not hurt the economy, the monthly construction PMI has leapt to 52.3 in September, up from 49.2 in August.
That’s much stronger than expected. It means activity in the sector increased last month, at the fastest rate since March (any reading over 50 = shows growth).
Markit, which compiles the report, says that residential housebuilding drove the recovery. There was also a welcome pick-up in new orders, after four months of “sustained decline”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/oct/04/pound-dollar-low-construction-imf-brexit-business-live
What in your view would be the constitutional / political impact of letting parliament vote on A50 and deciding we should never trigger it? A good thing in the round or a poochscrew?
"Parliament must have a vote. Unless we we think we might not like the vote..."
Do you want Parliament to vote on things or not? Make your bloody mind up
Bit off script there...
[The Romans were an exception, of course].
For as long as we are in the EU we will lobby on behalf of the Yanks.
*Apart from ones they don't like
But I ask again, on what grounds are the Brexiteers so scared Parliament might not just vote it through on the nod, that being the "will of the British people" ?
The Conservatives got a majority. An Act of Parliament enabling the referendum was passed. Leave got a majority.
Therefore the mandate is clear, and, even if a pointless parliamentary vote were held, Conservative MPs are obliged to vote for Brexit accordingly.
That vote made it part of our existing legislation. The EU Referendum Act was then passed, again by Parliament, in 2015: http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2015-16/europeanunionreferendum.html
The government now needs to exercise an article of what is already existing statute and has been since 2008. No new statute is necessary since Parliament approved it 7 years ago and then last year gave a decision to the nation that the government now respects.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/article-50-cant-be-triggered-unless-parliament-agrees-bp79h92fh
To the extent that Lisbon was ratified by parliament, parliament has already assented to the process as laid down in Article 50.
To the extent that parliament passed the referendum act and the act ratifying the Lisbon Treaty without any amendment to transfer the prerogative from parliament for activating A50, a step parliament has previously taken with other prerogatives it cared about, that has been agreed by parliament as well.
https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news/politics/new-prime-minister-theresa-may-faces-calls-snap-general-election/
Nobody in their right mind ever proposed that Parliament should vote on every single exercise of existing legislation. Should we get Parliament to pass a vote on whether my local hospital is open tomorrow or not, or should it just be open as the legislation for it is already on the books?
The mental gymnastics from the Brexiteers this morning would be worthy of a medal if it was an Olympic sport.
I might well be wrong. She may well be a conviction politician that wants to make Britain a fairer place. Her stance on Brexit- showing her hand on Article 50- suggests that she wants to play it with a straight bat.
I'll give her more time before I come to an opinion.
SNP sources last night accepted Westminster would have the last word on Brexit, saying Ms Sturgeon “has never threatened to veto Brexit”, although it had been misreported that way.
SNP ministers last year failed to scupper the Tories’ Trade Union Bill via an LCM after Westminster said a vote by MSPs was not required and Holyrood’s Presiding Officer agreed.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14779692.SNP_furious_as_Holyrood_told_it_will_have_no_vote_over_Brexit/
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
I always got the impression Remain felt most people were just whinging about the EU, and not serious, and the issue could be put to bed for a generation just by seriously hard campaigning to secure a solid victory.
Coleridge put your problem in context ...
“Like one, that on a lonesome road
Doth walk in fear and dread,
And having once turned round walks on,
And turns no more his head;
Because he knows, a frightful fiend
Doth close behind him tread.”
It's a'coming, and it's just behind you.
Turn, Scott P, and face your Nemesis.
Better not let the Parliamentarians anywhere near that, just in case...
The Lisbon Treaty isn't being changed at all, it is just getting a part of the Treaty exercised.
"The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it."
The debate opened: This is a simple, but vital, piece of legislation. It has one clear purpose: to deliver on our promise to give the British people the final say on our EU membership in an in/out referendum by the end of 2017.
QED.
Beyond that I think she is making a tactical error. Brexit won't be plain sailing. She is missing the opportunity to bind her MPs into whatever course of action her government takes. By saying, I don't trust you to make a decision, she is allowing them to opt out of the joint enterprise.
Simon Baugh, director of PR at Heathrow Airport, is moving to the Department for Transport to take up the role of group director of comms.
Read more at http://www.prweek.com/article/1332084/department-transport-hires-heathrow-pr-director-simon-baugh#rFtTBATDRmTxULWm.99
A tweet I saw:
Trump: "The good news is, it seems like we're up in Colorado..." Today's Monmouth poll has him down 11.
The man is deluded.
QED
What then?
1) Membership of the European Economic Area (EEA), like Norway: -£2,600
2) A negotiated bilateral agreement, such as that between the EU and Switzerland,
Turkey or Canada : -£4,300
3) World Trade Organization (WTO) membership without any form of specific agreement
with the EU, like Russia or Brazil: -£5,200
Respect.
You asked, in the bit you snipped, "Can you point me to the Hansard entry [on Parliament voting on Article 50?]". Triggering Article 50 is the defined way of giving effect to us Leaving the EU as required by the people who Parliament gave the final say.
You're drowning today.
Logically the position of Leavers is that legally any government could by executive action have taken Britain out of the EU without any prior consultation of anyone. The referendum, being advisory, can only be window dressing.
If that doesn't make you feel uncomfortable about the extent of executive power that is being claimed, you're not thinking about it enough.
Still, it was a briefly entertaining moment seeing assorted Trumplings trying to accommodate Assange within their world view.
I have said that before too
Interesting also, @Casino, that you say had Remain won, the issue wouldn't have gone away. All us ex-Remainers are doing is continuing to hold the government to account to ensure we obtain the best deal possible under the circumstances. It was all Nick Herbert was doing yesterday.
Thing is, when you have the three stooges in charge (a position, even with the London Mayorality, they are deeply unused to), no one can rely on them coming to a sane decision.
I live in the Valleys. I went to a very rough school. All boys; violent; crumbling buildings; lots of teachers who had given up the ghost years ago.
The school is (slightly) better now, certainly in terms of the buildings. But it is still rough and has a reputation, simply because of the catchment area.
I liked it. I was sporty and a bit of a lad and got away without too many severe beatings. I also had a 'good' (relative, of course) education, because i was lucky to be in the top classes where the better teachers taught. It was a cruel place for clever kids and nerds and non-sporting types though. There was (and still is, by all accounts) some severe bullying/fighting.
I'm sending my boy there. He's seven and he's like me. Sporty, likes a scrap, not particularly intelligent.
My boy is in a really, really good junior school (the one I went to). His class is freakishly bright, especially some of the girls. I've already heard parents (the wealthier ones) talking about moving to Cardiff or Monmouthshire ready for when their child gets to comprehensive age. Their children are delicate and sensitive. The school I went to will eat them alive. Their parents know that, they have the wealth to move, so they will.
The rest of us will be left behind.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest but I've no doubt that if grammars were in existence, then a) I would've past the 11-plus, b) my boy would pass the 11-plus and c) neither of us would've been condemned to bog-standard comp schools.
If Remain had won we wouldn't need to do anything. As Leave won we do need to work out what to do - you know the issues soft or hard Brexit, single market, EEA etc etc.
Isn't their a case going through the courts which will settle this one way or another ?
UK Parliament to be Sovereign (sic) !
When do we want it?
Only after the executive have bypassed Parliament and triggered Article 50!
I can't understand why the Leave campaign didn't put that on a poster...
Now a clause approved in the 2008 Act needs to be activated in response to the referendum. That is just government action, no new legislation is required as it has all already been passed.