Mr. Llama, how peculiar. It's via ye olde e-mail not Vanilla, in case that's what you were checking. If it's not there, I shall re-send.
Mr. P, Parliament voting on something it's already voted on is a waste of time. Why ask the people what they think if you're going to ignore what they say?
If they give this the green light, asking them is a waste of time.
A vote in the UK Parliament is a "waste of time"
I can't understand why the Take Back Control with Sovereignty in the UK Parliament campaign didn't put THAT on a poster...
Do you actually turn your monitor on when you come to PB, or do you just roll your face on the keyboard with the same inanities irrespective of what anyone else writes ?
I'm with TOPPING: whether parliament needs to be consulted or not is besides the point. It is right that that do vote on this because it will be near unanimous, and it will make clear which of our representatives choose to listen to the voice of the people, and which do not.
@Philip_Thompson You keep giving an entirely circular answer which consists of: "the government has the power without consulting Parliament because the government has the power". The question being asked is: "does the government have the power - and indeed, if it once did does it still?".
Come back to me when you have something useful to say about that rather than repetitively spamming the same line to take.
No I'm not saying that, what I have said all thread is that the government has the power because Parliament gave it that power. Parliament passed Lisbon in 2008 which authorised Article 50.
The government has always had the power to exercise existing articles of Treaties, that is a prerogative power and always has been. By passing Lisbon in 2008, Parliament voted to give the executive the power to exercise Article 50. Parliament could have (and possibly should have) put a restriction on that existing power, but it did not.
By Labour in 2008 putting Article 50 onto our statute, the executive was handed the power to exercise Article 50. Parliament did that.
I suppose we'll find out, when the case gets to Court.
I think it would be surprising though, if the Courts were to rule that the Government has lost the power to exercise existing articles of treaties.
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...
Most new laws in future for the rest of time will be SIs? Well, that may be true. But since SIs need to fall within a specific Act.
And need to be laid before both Houses, where they can be annulled by simple resolution (Statutory Instruments Act 1946, S5(1)), its complete scaremongering bollocks from Scott & Paste (again).
Read the legislation properly. That only applies to SIs subject to the negative resolution procedure (which is, admittedly, most of them). Around 10% of SIs are subject to the positive resolution procedure which means they have to be approved by both Houses. A small number are required to be laid before parliament but are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Some SIs don't even have to be laid before parliament. See https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l07.pdf for more information.
Note that the Commons has not rejected an SI since 1969. The Lords last rejected an SI in 2000.
If individuals think that Brexit is profoundly wrong they are morally obliged to campaign against it.
That's what UKIP and leavers have been doing for years since the EU position was last decided democratically once and for all. Who knows they might change people's minds.
If Brexit is so weak it can't sustain itself against scrutiny, maybe it should be reversed.
Forty years ago, no none explained to the British public why a tariff-free trade grouping need to have uncontrolled immigration. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Why not?
I understand the Europhile feeling for this, but why is it presented as being essential? Not just a good thing, but essential?
I've been to European meetings in Brussels to discuss standardisation and scientific issues. I understand the need for a level playing field (sort of) but the immigration aspect seems more of a social issue than an economic one.
Oh, and the information that the founders made the rules may be true, but why wasn't this spoken about in 1975? And I was more politically aware than most at the time.
Mr. 13, my memory is not what it was but if I recall correctly the free movement of people was not a right or even a item in the original EEC that we joined in 1973. It came much later as the EEC, on which we had a referendum in 1975, morphed into the EU, on which until this year we had never been allowed to vote.
I'm with TOPPING: whether parliament needs to be consulted or not is besides the point. It is right that that do vote on this because it will be near unanimous, and it will make clear which of our representatives choose to listen to the voice of the people, and which do not.
Yes and we might he able to kick out a few loathsome Lords who decide they know better. Get that legislation through please, Mrs May!
"It wasn't much of an issue, given that the original EEC/EC comprised a set of economies with broadly similar demographics and GDP per head."
Possibly the main reason for the Leave victory. It was always the feeling that the "powers that be" wanted to avoid consulting the voters as things evolved. Cameron broke the consensus because he thought he was 'good' at politics. He was, but not that good.
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.
I'm a Remainer too - and I understand the disappointment of defeat - I suspect this is how Churchill supporters felt in 1945 - How could they???
But the British people were right then, and I have faith that in time they will have been right on this too....
And all this bitterness & bile....as the old saying goes, 'when setting out for revenge, first dig two graves....'
Solar overtaking Coal - pretty incredible when you think that just a few years ago coal was generating 40% of our electricity.
It'll just be the Notts stations (West Burton, Cottam & Ratcliffe) + Drax left soon.
At about this time yesterday coal was producing about 18% of our electricity, though it fell back later in the day. This morning it is shown as producing about 5%. The national grid produces no real-time figures on the production of electricity from solar sources and will only say that it thinks the midday dip on the demand graph is probably down to solar. So I remain sceptical on the claims in the Guardian.
This time yesterday, coal was about 3GW out of 35GW! Coal usage peaks around 7-8pm at around 6GW out of 40GW total supply.
There's some great trivia on kettle boiling power surges re TV - dvr and Netflix has changed the profile quite considerably
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
the Swiss government still gets three years to implement a decision, so that's quite similar to our current timetable for withdrawal.
If individuals think that Brexit is profoundly wrong they are morally obliged to campaign against it.
That's what UKIP and leavers have been doing for years since the EU position was last decided democratically once and for all. Who knows they might change people's minds.
If Brexit is so weak it can't sustain itself against scrutiny, maybe it should be reversed.
You tried to campaign against it, with every advantage possible - government backing, trade union backing, business backing, the BBC, Guardian, Times, Indy, Mirror, the EU itself, the WTO, the US President, the G20, the Bank of England.
It's time to look at the kind of Brexit that will be least to your displeasure, rather than fighting yesterday's battle, potentially on a more level playing field.
There is no mandate for the type of post EU settlement we're negotiating. Since the different options change the UK in different and quite profound ways, they should be put to the people.
That's an unrelated point. There is a clear mandate to leave the EU. We do that by triggering Article 50.
Separately from that, we will enter negotations with our EU friends as to what the future relationship between the UK and the EU will be. I don't personally think that that separate matter can meaningfully be decided by referendum, or indeed by parliament, since it is necessarily a highly detailed package involving a complex give-and-take which will have to be hammered out by the negotiating teams in smoke-free rooms. Either way, it's irrelevant to Article 50.
hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum
You clearly weren't paying attention to REMAIN - it was wall-to - wall 'Hard Brexit'!
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
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.
I'm a Remainer too - and I understand the disappointment of defeat - I suspect this is how Churchill supporters felt in 1945 - How could they???
But the British people were right then, and I have faith that in time they will have been right on this too....
And all this bitterness & bile....as the old saying goes, 'when setting out for revenge, first dig two graves....'
As it happens, I think the voters got it wrong in 1945, but they had the right to get it wrong.
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
Yes, there's a case for that. Maybe it will happen.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
We have an elected government to make all our decisions. It chooses not to on occasions. If the people reject the Brexit deal then they reject it.
You do make a fair point about the Remain side warning against the dangers of a hard Brexit, but I am not sure we should be seeking to punish voters for not believing what they were told.
If individuals think that Brexit is profoundly wrong they are morally obliged to campaign against it.
We had a campaign, we had a discussion. We had a vote. The matter should be closed. Brexit means Brexit.
Now if people wanted to campaign to take us back into the EU after leaving, then thats fine, but the people have given the instruction to politicians. They are the servants, not the masters.
If individuals think that Brexit is profoundly wrong they are morally obliged to campaign against it.
That's what UKIP and leavers have been doing for years since the EU position was last decided democratically once and for all. Who knows they might change people's minds.
If Brexit is so weak it can't sustain itself against scrutiny, maybe it should be reversed.
And let them spend 40yrs doing so, if the EU lasts that long.
Solar overtaking Coal - pretty incredible when you think that just a few years ago coal was generating 40% of our electricity.
It'll just be the Notts stations (West Burton, Cottam & Ratcliffe) + Drax left soon.
At about this time yesterday coal was producing about 18% of our electricity, though it fell back later in the day. This morning it is shown as producing about 5%. The national grid produces no real-time figures on the production of electricity from solar sources and will only say that it thinks the midday dip on the demand graph is probably down to solar. So I remain sceptical on the claims in the Guardian.
This time yesterday, coal was about 3GW out of 35GW! Coal usage peaks around 7-8pm at around 6GW out of 40GW total supply.
several times each day (sad bugger that I am). I know what it said after I came back from my morning walk yesterday. I remember it particularly because coal sourced electricity was shown as higher than wind sourced and I thought of posting the fact on here.
Perhaps the website had a spasm. I don't know. I only know what I saw.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
We have an elected government to make all our decisions. It chooses not to on occasions. If the people reject the Brexit deal then they reject it.
That would put the country in a nonsense position, and make the 'two' referendums conflict with each other. Leave, but not leave.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
I can understand why Leavers are so reluctant to put a final Brexit deal in front of voters. But surely if we trusted them to make the right call on whether to Leave or not, we should trust them to make the right decision about the terms under which we Leave.
Forty years ago, no none explained to the British public why a tariff-free trade grouping need to have uncontrolled immigration. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Why not?
I understand the Europhile feeling for this, but why is it presented as being essential? Not just a good thing, but essential?
I've been to European meetings in Brussels to discuss standardisation and scientific issues. I understand the need for a level playing field (sort of) but the immigration aspect seems more of a social issue than an economic one.
Oh, and the information that the founders made the rules may be true, but why wasn't this spoken about in 1975? And I was more politically aware than most at the time.
Mr. 13, my memory is not what it was but if I recall correctly the free movement of people was not a right or even a item in the original EEC that we joined in 1973. It came much later as the EEC, on which we had a referendum in 1975, morphed into the EU, on which until this year we had never been allowed to vote.
Sorry Mr L, but I think..... and as you say, it is 40 odd years ago ...... that free movement was on the table. What wasn’t anticipated was the amount of it, or the perhaps less than scrupulous employers who recruited low paid East & South Europeans to do jobs at 60% of local wages. To be fair to said employers supermarket buyers have some responsibility, too!
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
Yes, 'Hard Brexit' was mooted, but it was generally dismissed by the 'mainstream' Leavers as something of a fringe/crank position. Is surprises me how quickly it has become the orthodoxy. I think the Soft Leavers genuinely thought their view would prevail; they were just naive - the forces they helped unleash were always going to consume them with fire.
Can I just say well done to Mr Nabavi. Despite being a strong Remainer, you are supporting democracy and accepting that A50 has to be triggered by the PM.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit.
The referendum gave a mandate for both. The Campaign made that clear.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
We have an elected government to make all our decisions. It chooses not to on occasions. If the people reject the Brexit deal then they reject it.
That would put the country in a nonsense position, and make the 'two' referendums conflict with each other. Leave, but not leave.
And, presumably, that would be one of the issues discussed during the referendum campaign itself and, therefore, something that informed voting decisions.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit.
The referendum gave a mandate for both. The Campaign made that clear.
I disagree. The only mandate is in or out. Not how.
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
Yes, there's a case for that. Maybe it will happen.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
Jonathan gave his opinion on the best way forward and it's difficult to argue with him when he said "The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither." You disagree, but when you say that it's not the way Parliamentary democracy works, that is just your opinion.
Mr. Observer, a vote on the negotiated terms wouldn't work because it would only bind the UK, not the EU, and we'd be leaving anyway. It only makes sense if you want to have the hardest possible departure.
A small factoid about the Attlee Labour government: In 1946 the Labour government decided, god knows why, that it would be just brilliant to donate a working example of the new Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine to the Soviet Union. They even invited Mikhoyan (of MiG fame) to visit RR's plant in Derby (where they got samples of Nene turbine blade machinings). The Russians reverse engineered it went from having no advanced jet technology to having the best. Two years later the MiG 15 appeared and the USA / UK lost air superiority in Korea. A lot of USA and UK airmen died and, crucially, the Korean War ended in stalemate. I blame the Labour party for the very existence of the disgusting dictatorship in North Korea! Their current leader is a prime example of this ideologically driven traitorous pig dog mindset. Bloody commie.
I'm somewhat concerned about the number of Remainers who are anxious to derail the democratic decision of the British public.
Why do the Brexiteers insist on equating "vote in Parliament" with "derail the democratic decision" ?
It's what you have been arguing for. And now you don't want it in case you don't like the answer.
Not even SeanT on his worst day has flip-flopped as badly the Brexiteers this morning.
Because it is unnecessary, and worse, is an attempt to subvert the decision of the people
The only substantive reason for a vote in parliament is to delay, divert from or prevent Brexit. And worse, it restricts the hand of the executive in negotiation.
Basically, only those who want to weasel out of Brexit wan't a vote in parliament.
When will PB Remoaners reach the acceptance stage?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
Yes, there's a case for that. Maybe it will happen.
If you do that, you reveal your entire hand prior to the negotiations. It's a total non starter.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
We have an elected government to make all our decisions. It chooses not to on occasions. If the people reject the Brexit deal then they reject it.
That would put the country in a nonsense position, and make the 'two' referendums conflict with each other. Leave, but not leave.
And, presumably, that would be one of the issues discussed during the referendum campaign itself and, therefore, something that informed voting decisions.
No. It's a matter of logic, you can not have one referendum which contradicts another unless it's a straight re-run, which it isn't.
There's a rather large legal issue as well, in that if article 50 is triggered, can it then be backed out of? The wording of it suggests it can't.
"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. "
The only substantive reason for a vote in parliament is to delay, divert from or prevent Brexit. And worse, it restricts the hand of the executive in negotiation.
If Tezza calls one, will you be cheering Sovereignty and democracy, or crying TRAITOR?
A small factoid about the Attlee Labour government: In 1946 the Labour government decided, god knows why, that it would be just brilliant to donate a working example of the new Rolls-Royce Nene jet engine to the Soviet Union. They even invited Mikhoyan (of MiG fame) to visit RR's plant in Derby (where they got samples of Nene turbine blade machinings). The Russians reverse engineered it went from having no advanced jet technology to having the best. Two years later the MiG 15 appeared and the USA / UK lost air superiority in Korea. A lot of USA and UK airmen died and, crucially, the Korean War ended in stalemate. I blame the Labour party for the very existence of the disgusting dictatorship in North Korea! Their current leader is a prime example of this ideologically driven traitorous pig dog mindset. Bloody commie.
Blimey. I didn't know that.
The first fact about Atlee that I've heard that is bloody outrageous. Was it him or the Defence minister/Air minister?
"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. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
Yes, there's a case for that. Maybe it will happen.
That would be the neatest solution.
Wouldn't work in practise, lets say it happens, and May stands of "Hard Brexit" and Labour stands on "Soft Brexit", the voters will still say "I am not voting for that eejit Corbyn" and return a Tory/HardBrexit government. With the exception of a few die hard remainers, most of the public will reject Corbyn irrespective of his prefered type of Brexit.
You may be right. I defer to your greater knowledge as I'm only a boy of 66. But the original question remains ...
Why is uncontrolled immigration essential to a trading community? It may have been implicit from the beginning, it may have been added later without consultation, it may be considered a good idea, but why is it essential?
I must have missed the acclamation for it from the voters.
"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. "
Can you provide the line in the act authorizing the referendum that says it was legally binding?
I'm somewhat concerned about the number of Remainers who are anxious to derail the democratic decision of the British public.
Why do the Brexiteers insist on equating "vote in Parliament" with "derail the democratic decision" ?
It's what you have been arguing for. And now you don't want it in case you don't like the answer.
Not even SeanT on his worst day has flip-flopped as badly the Brexiteers this morning.
Because it is unnecessary, and worse, is an attempt to subvert the decision of the people
The only substantive reason for a vote in parliament is to delay, divert from or prevent Brexit. And worse, it restricts the hand of the executive in negotiation.
Basically, only those who want to weasel out of Brexit wan't a vote in parliament.
When will PB Remoaners reach the acceptance stage?
God forbid that Parliament restricts the executive from doing whatever it wants. Isn't that the point of its existence?
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
Jonathan gave his opinion on the best way forward and it's difficult to argue with him when he said "The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither." You disagree, but when you say that it's not the way Parliamentary democracy works, that is just your opinion.
Everything on here today is "just opinion". Trying for a parliamentary 'mandate' for a particular form of negotiation is, in my opinion, absurd, if we are serious about negotiating the best deal we can. (As a matter of disclosure, I voted remain.) In any event, there are ongoing legal cases which should settle the matter one way or another before next spring, rendering our discussion here moot.
I'm somewhat concerned about the number of Remainers who are anxious to derail the democratic decision of the British public.
Why do the Brexiteers insist on equating "vote in Parliament" with "derail the democratic decision" ?
It's what you have been arguing for. And now you don't want it in case you don't like the answer.
Not even SeanT on his worst day has flip-flopped as badly the Brexiteers this morning.
Because it is unnecessary, and worse, is an attempt to subvert the decision of the people
The only substantive reason for a vote in parliament is to delay, divert from or prevent Brexit. And worse, it restricts the hand of the executive in negotiation.
Basically, only those who want to weasel out of Brexit wan't a vote in parliament.
When will PB Remoaners reach the acceptance stage?
God forbid that Parliament restricts the executive from doing whatever it wants. Isn't that the point of its existence?
No the point of its existence is to pass legislation. It already passed this treaty 8 years ago.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
Jonathan gave his opinion on the best way forward and it's difficult to argue with him when he said "The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither." You disagree, but when you say that it's not the way Parliamentary democracy works, that is just your opinion.
It's not my opinion it's the law. Fixed Term Parliament act and all that. Barring a no confidence motion or the Commons voting by two thirds to call an early vote the government is legally bound to govern.
Forty years ago, no none explained to the British public why a tariff-free trade grouping need to have uncontrolled immigration. In fact, it was barely mentioned. Why not?
I understand the Europhile feeling for this, but why is it presented as being essential? Not just a good thing, but essential?
I've been to European meetings in Brussels to discuss standardisation and scientific issues. I understand the need for a level playing field (sort of) but the immigration aspect seems more of a social issue than an economic one.
Oh, and the information that the founders made the rules may be true, but why wasn't this spoken about in 1975? And I was more politically aware than most at the time.
Mr. 13, my memory is not what it was but if I recall correctly the free movement of people was not a right or even a item in the original EEC that we joined in 1973. It came much later as the EEC, on which we had a referendum in 1975, morphed into the EU, on which until this year we had never been allowed to vote.
Sorry Mr L, but I think..... and as you say, it is 40 odd years ago ...... that free movement was on the table. What wasn’t anticipated was the amount of it, or the perhaps less than scrupulous employers who recruited low paid East & South Europeans to do jobs at 60% of local wages. To be fair to said employers supermarket buyers have some responsibility, too!
Thank you, Mr. Cole. I am now going to have to spend my afternoon reading through EU treaties just to see if my memory has become as bad as you imply.
That one could travel freely between European countries is not I think in doubt. For many one did not even need a full passport, just a British Visitors Passport available from post offices for ten shillings. However, countries had the right to refuse admission and to sling out someone that they did not like. The change to Free Movement came much later when the idea of common citizenship was introduced, a citizen of one EU country was a citizen of all and could not be discriminated against on where they came from.
At least that is what my memory tells me. After lunch and my early afternoon nap I am now going to have to Google away like mad to see if my memory matches the treaties. Thanks, mate.
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
I can understand why Leavers are so reluctant to put a final Brexit deal in front of voters. But surely if we trusted them to make the right call on whether to Leave or not, we should trust them to make the right decision about the terms under which we Leave.
Why? Do you want every decision ever to be held by referenda?
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
Jonathan gave his opinion on the best way forward and it's difficult to argue with him when he said "The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither." You disagree, but when you say that it's not the way Parliamentary democracy works, that is just your opinion.
It's not my opinion it's the law. Fixed Term Parliament act and all that. Barring a no confidence motion or the Commons voting by two thirds to call an early vote the government is legally bound to govern.
I'm somewhat concerned about the number of Remainers who are anxious to derail the democratic decision of the British public.
Why do the Brexiteers insist on equating "vote in Parliament" with "derail the democratic decision" ?
It's what you have been arguing for. And now you don't want it in case you don't like the answer.
Not even SeanT on his worst day has flip-flopped as badly the Brexiteers this morning.
Because it is unnecessary, and worse, is an attempt to subvert the decision of the people
The only substantive reason for a vote in parliament is to delay, divert from or prevent Brexit. And worse, it restricts the hand of the executive in negotiation.
Basically, only those who want to weasel out of Brexit wan't a vote in parliament.
When will PB Remoaners reach the acceptance stage?
I think the name calling is ridiculous at this point. The result of the referendum has to be accepted - I'd be surprised if the negotiated deal will be enough for the Tory hard right let alone 'Remainers'. The extremists on all sides are never satisfied - surely that is one of the great political truisms.
Three Brits win the Nobel Prize for Physics. Nice one!!
The Brits working in America have won the Nobel Prize for physics. hashtag brain drain.
Although British in origin, the three individuals all now live and work in the US. David Thouless was born in 1934 in Bearsden. He is an emeritus professor at the University of Washington. Duncan Haldane was born in 1951 in London. He is a professor of physics at Princeton University. Michael Kosterlitz was born in 1942 in Aberdeen. He is currently affiliated to Brown University.
You may be right. I defer to your greater knowledge as I'm only a boy of 66. But the original question remains ...
Why is uncontrolled immigration essential to a trading community? It may have been implicit from the beginning, it may have been added later without consultation, it may be considered a good idea, but why is it essential?
I must have missed the acclamation for it from the voters.
AFAIR it wasn’t particularly an issue intil about 2000 (give or take) when we started to import Portugese workers for low-grade agricultural work in Eastern England. Remember, too, this was a generation brought up on the likes of Auf Weidersehn, Pet, with Britsih brickies and so on working on the re-development of Germany. So the idea of being easily able to go somewhere else and work was, again IIRC, quite popular, particularly for young people. It wasn’t until the East European countries joined, with significantly lower wages at home, that things started to go wrong. Personally, as I’ve said here, I always thought that the expansion to the East was a Bad Idea!
There will be top lines and there will be details. A referendum on approving terms can be boiled down to a few key issues; for example: the extent of free movement, whether we are in or out of the single market, and whether we are still contributing to the EU. If it is to be hard Brexit - a possibility that was not mooted during the referendum - surely that needs to be OKed by the people; likewise if we stay a full part of the single market.
We have an elected government to make that decision. We are not Switzerland (thank goodness, in this case).
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
The government needs a mandate to negotiate for hard or soft versions of Brexit. At the moment it has neither. Given the outcome for the UK is so profoundly different, we need a say. A mandate will also strengthen the govt postion.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
That's not the way Parliamentary democracy works. The government has a mandate to govern. They implement the kind of Brexit they think is appropriate and then in 2020 face the wrath or pleasure of the voter. If a party wants to stand on a different platform, they can do so then.
I can understand why Leavers are so reluctant to put a final Brexit deal in front of voters. But surely if we trusted them to make the right call on whether to Leave or not, we should trust them to make the right decision about the terms under which we Leave.
Why? Do you want every decision ever to be held by referenda?
From my amateur legal knowledge I would prefer the appellants arguments giving parliament the right to authorise the government to trigger A50 process.
You may be right. I defer to your greater knowledge as I'm only a boy of 66. But the original question remains ...
Why is uncontrolled immigration essential to a trading community? It may have been implicit from the beginning, it may have been added later without consultation, it may be considered a good idea, but why is it essential?
I must have missed the acclamation for it from the voters.
AFAIR it wasn’t particularly an issue intil about 2000 (give or take) when we started to import Portugese workers for low-grade agricultural work in Eastern England. Remember, too, this was a generation brought up on the likes of Auf Weidersehn, Pet, with Britsih brickies and so on working on the re-development of Germany. So the idea of being easily able to go somewhere else and work was, again IIRC, quite popular, particularly for young people. It wasn’t until the East European countries joined, with significantly lower wages at home, that things started to go wrong. Personally, as I’ve said here, I always thought that the expansion to the East was a Bad Idea!
Anecdotal rather than numerical, I'm afraid, but there were quite a few Portuguese workers coming across for agricultural and food processing work in Norfolk and Cambs in the 1990s. Though that may be within your "give and take"! Not as dramatic as the later Lithuanian/Polish/Romanian arrivals though.
@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.
Parliament was increasingly delegating soverignty to Europe. I don't believe it has that right (most of the powers it delegated are clearly subordinate and could be overridden)
Parluament's power comes from the fact it comprises representatives of the people. If it did not comprise these representatives it would not have the authority it does.
I do believe the Executive has the right to execute on power. And parliament, and the people, have the right to hold it to account for its actions
Comments
Mr. P, Parliament voting on something it's already voted on is a waste of time. Why ask the people what they think if you're going to ignore what they say?
I think it would be surprising though, if the Courts were to rule that the Government has lost the power to exercise existing articles of treaties.
Note that the Commons has not rejected an SI since 1969. The Lords last rejected an SI in 2000.
That's what UKIP and leavers have been doing for years since the EU position was last decided democratically once and for all. Who knows they might change people's minds.
If Brexit is so weak it can't sustain itself against scrutiny, maybe it should be reversed.
"It wasn't much of an issue, given that the original EEC/EC comprised a set of economies with broadly similar demographics and GDP per head."
Possibly the main reason for the Leave victory. It was always the feeling that the "powers that be" wanted to avoid consulting the voters as things evolved. Cameron broke the consensus because he thought he was 'good' at politics. He was, but not that good.
But the British people were right then, and I have faith that in time they will have been right on this too....
And all this bitterness & bile....as the old saying goes, 'when setting out for revenge, first dig two graves....'
I also take issue with your suggestion that a 'hard Brexit' wasn't mooted during the referendum. It was mooted, repeatedly. The Remain side, and the PM, and the Chancellor, made the economic risks 100% crystal clear. No one can possibly claim that they were not warned that we might end up with job losses as a result of reduced access to the Single Market. Voters decided to go ahead anyway, which is fair enough. The new PM is getting on with delivering their choice, in the best way she can.
Furthermore, there's a practical difficulty with saying the final agreement should be 'OKed by the people'. What if they say 'No thanks'?
FE: Mercedes have reserved a slot in the 2018/9 season [Formula E runs over calendar years for its seasons, unlike F1].
It's time to look at the kind of Brexit that will be least to your displeasure, rather than fighting yesterday's battle, potentially on a more level playing field.
A50 triggered in March. Parliament dissolved. Parties go to people in May GE with their plans for that they are aiming for Brexit hard,soft,left, right or whatever. General election happens. Mandate secured. Negotiations begin.
Created by the ex CEO of Firefox
You do make a fair point about the Remain side warning against the dangers of a hard Brexit, but I am not sure we should be seeking to punish voters for not believing what they were told.
Now if people wanted to campaign to take us back into the EU after leaving, then thats fine, but the people have given the instruction to politicians. They are the servants, not the masters.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
several times each day (sad bugger that I am). I know what it said after I came back from my morning walk yesterday. I remember it particularly because coal sourced electricity was shown as higher than wind sourced and I thought of posting the fact on here.
Perhaps the website had a spasm. I don't know. I only know what I saw.
To be fair to said employers supermarket buyers have some responsibility, too!
Can I just say well done to Mr Nabavi. Despite being a strong Remainer, you are supporting democracy and accepting that A50 has to be triggered by the PM.
Unlike some on here.
Similiar size populations so wonder what the difference is ?
#CableStreet80 is a good opportunity to watch David Frost's classic interview of Oswald Mosley from 1967.
https://t.co/ewAzSL37To
You disagree, but when you say that it's not the way Parliamentary democracy works, that is just your opinion.
The only substantive reason for a vote in parliament is to delay, divert from or prevent Brexit. And worse, it restricts the hand of the executive in negotiation.
Basically, only those who want to weasel out of Brexit wan't a vote in parliament.
When will PB Remoaners reach the acceptance stage?
There's a rather large legal issue as well, in that if article 50 is triggered, can it then be backed out of? The wording of it suggests it can't.
The first fact about Atlee that I've heard that is bloody outrageous. Was it him or the Defence minister/Air minister?
You may be right. I defer to your greater knowledge as I'm only a boy of 66. But the original question remains ...
Why is uncontrolled immigration essential to a trading community? It may have been implicit from the beginning, it may have been added later without consultation, it may be considered a good idea, but why is it essential?
I must have missed the acclamation for it from the voters.
Trying for a parliamentary 'mandate' for a particular form of negotiation is, in my opinion, absurd, if we are serious about negotiating the best deal we can. (As a matter of disclosure, I voted remain.)
In any event, there are ongoing legal cases which should settle the matter one way or another before next spring, rendering our discussion here moot.
http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/embed/?s=ibvc&v=201610040836o&d1=20110101&d2=20161231&type=area&h=300&w=600
That one could travel freely between European countries is not I think in doubt. For many one did not even need a full passport, just a British Visitors Passport available from post offices for ten shillings. However, countries had the right to refuse admission and to sling out someone that they did not like. The change to Free Movement came much later when the idea of common citizenship was introduced, a citizen of one EU country was a citizen of all and could not be discriminated against on where they came from.
At least that is what my memory tells me. After lunch and my early afternoon nap I am now going to have to Google away like mad to see if my memory matches the treaties. Thanks, mate.
Although British in origin, the three individuals all now live and work in the US.
David Thouless was born in 1934 in Bearsden. He is an emeritus professor at the University of Washington.
Duncan Haldane was born in 1951 in London. He is a professor of physics at Princeton University.
Michael Kosterlitz was born in 1942 in Aberdeen. He is currently affiliated to Brown University.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37486373
Remember, too, this was a generation brought up on the likes of Auf Weidersehn, Pet, with Britsih brickies and so on working on the re-development of Germany. So the idea of being easily able to go somewhere else and work was, again IIRC, quite popular, particularly for young people. It wasn’t until the East European countries joined, with significantly lower wages at home, that things started to go wrong.
Personally, as I’ve said here, I always thought that the expansion to the East was a Bad Idea!
From my amateur legal knowledge I would prefer the appellants arguments giving parliament the right to authorise the government to trigger A50 process.
NEW THREAD
Doctors will have to repay thousands if they leave NHS too soon after training. The first consequence of their botched strike
Parluament's power comes from the fact it comprises representatives of the people. If it did not comprise these representatives it would not have the authority it does.
I do believe the Executive has the right to execute on power. And parliament, and the people, have the right to hold it to account for its actions