I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
The decision to trigger A50 was never to be democratic. The wish for it to happen was stated democratically, but the decision to be formalised needed either the government or parliament to bring it into effect. Both of who. Could in theory decide not to, frustrating the will if the people.
That it is possible is not a reason not to do it that way. The only question surely is how it can legally be done. In the absence of a binding referendum, any option involves the possibility, albeit slight, that the result won't be implemented.
For weeks us Remainers have been accused of being stuck somewhere in the stages of grief.
It appears scanning the newspapers that Leavers are now experiencing the same thing as they fail to come to terms with the constitution of their own country which they wanted back.
On the advisory nature of the referendum, again, the government didn't even try to argue that it was a source of authority for the decision to trigger. I suspect this will need to be repeated throughout the thread at regular intervals.
Yes it did. It's in the leaflet it sent in February, where it says something like "we will implement your decision." No doubt those with more technical skill than me can embed the preciese quote in a comment.
I don't follow that argument. A government can only implement decisions if it commands a majority in parliament; requiring them to go through the process of passing a bill can hardly be seen as frustrating that commitment.
I fully understand the outrage - and there is no doubt that a very large number of people will share the feelings of the Barnsley residents on R4 this morning who were expressing bemusement that we are not already 'out'. May should have, and still must I think, ram a one line bill through the commons, and threaten the Lords with extinction if they meddle. Far better politics than a snap election.
Governments can implement decisions where they have the necessary authority. The primary question of the case is about whether they do have that authority. The secondary, related, question is what has given, or would give, them that authority.
Quite - and the courts have decided that the necessary authority is in this case a vote in parliament. A leaflet does not confer authority.
Get on with a one line bill - or does May not trust her parliamentary daftspeople ?
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
They are - they confused UK law and international law.
You do realise that using phrases such as "so to do..." does not give us confidence that your legal knowledge is greater than that of the three most senior members of the UK judiciary.
I don't doubt that they have more legal experience than I do. Experience doesn't confer infallibility.
On one point of detail, David Herdson is simply wrong to say that all past referendums in the UK have been respected. If that were true, we wouldn't be getting directly elected mayors of Birmingham and Manchester.
Those are different roles from the ones that were voted on in 2011.
I'm sure that will be of great comfort to all those who expressed their view on the first proposal and who had no opportunity to express their view on the tweaks to the proposal that the government imposed on them.
FWIW, I agree that the Metro-mayors should have been put to a popular vote, as that of London originally was. But all the same, they're still different jobs and the ones envisaged in 2011 were not introduced when the referendums failed.
Disagree. And also disagree that the London system should ever have been put to a referendum. Thankfully it was won. But the London metro mayoralty should have been imposed in the same way that the Manchester and Liverpool metro mayoralties have been. Local government reorganisation should not require referenda. Mrs T didn't seek the views of Londoners when she abolished the GLC!
Actually I disagree. Our system of government would be improved if local government had - as it does in most other countries - a secure position in the constitution separate from central government. In Britain central government has complete power over local government and it isn't great that, as happened in London and elsewhere during the 80s, big chunks of it can be abolished without any reference to people in the areas affected.
I've no legal training but what are judges for? To uphold and interpret the law. Who makes the law? The people through their representatives in Parliament.
Think of a pedant's distinction between less and fewer. If someone says less people, we still know what they mean. The Judges like to be those pedants.
Everyone knew this was a decisive vote on our European future, even the Judges. No one thought ... 'Oh well, it doesn't matter, because if we lose, we'll go over the small print with a fine tooth comb, ask someone to adjudicate who's on our side, and we'll wriggle out anyway.'
What message is being sent here? The pedants pretend they don't understand because they don't like the voters' views. They regards the little people as expendable to their own wants. They are 'experts' in their getting their own way and the will of the people can go ... itself.
I suspect some legal people get it. Some don't want to.
snip.
Only in the eyes of people who are asses.
The law is imperfect, and judges and juries make mistakes. Few people would disagree with that. But saying that the law is an ass based on reports on newspapers, tw*tter headlines or other social media is a very dangerous road to go down.
Court cases are more complex than newspaper summaries (often going for clickbait headlines) allow for.
snip If the Supreme Court upholds this, I can't see any alternative to a general election. That may be good news for UKIP and the Conservatives. I wonder if Labour have considered the implications? I suspect not, or that idiot Emily Thornberry might not have sounded quite so triumphalist this morning.
Yes, we need a general election. That is completely clear.
It will also be good news for Labour. It will mean getting rid of the utterly useless wrecker Corbyn his nasty gang of antisemitic hard left bullies three years early. Bring it on.
Morning all,
The alternative to the judges decision would have set the precedent that Royal Prerogative, as acted upon by Ministers, could be used on domestic issues. This is a highly dangerous road to go on imho and is unconstitutional, exactly as the judges upheld.
The law is not an ass. The ruling was based on the settle will of the people and common law laid down over centuries about the power of the crown in Parliament.
It has upheld the rights of Parliament against an over mighty executive.
Why are Leavers suddenly against Parliamentary sovereignty?
Parliamentary sovereignty is fine provided that they don't get to overturn referendum decisions.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
"Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE."
That's not the case if the blockers are in the HoL, not the HoC.
This confirms what we have said before, that the presidency is three offices in one, and even for those who like what they think are his policies, Trump is falling short on the other two of these roles: commander in chief (can he be trusted not to start ww3 on a whim?) and head of state -- does he look presidential with the dignity to represent the United States on the world stage and at banquets with Her Maj?
For weeks us Remainers have been accused of being stuck somewhere in the stages of grief.
It appears scanning the newspapers that Leavers are now experiencing the same thing as they fail to come to terms with the constitution of their own country which they wanted back.
Not all leavers, one hastens to add. But the point is fair to some degree. Although it seems more panic from people fearing parliament would not trigger a50, when even if they do not,there would be co sequences.
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
They are - they confused UK law and international law.
Fine. and that will be a good thing to know moving forward.
That mail headline is bloody ridiculous and possibly even dangerous, given the judgement was quite clear it was not concerned about political questions and was concerned not with leaving the Eu but whether the government had the power to trigger it or not or if parliament needed to do it, and given the judgement in no way prevents Brexit even if it us upheld. And the government accepted the question on whether it had the power or not was for the courts to decide, it all seems right and proper, now we see what the appeal will say. The alternative is a world where the government says it has the power to do things without parliament and we have to take their word for it. I know some are worried Brexit will be prevented, or irritated it will a more frustrated process, but it wasn't happening until march anyway, and being forced to defend the legal and procedural basis now will prevent any criticism on that basis later.
What a world when conhome is sensible by comparison.
As a lay person I found the judgement convincing - it will be interesting to see the appeal, as the judges felt the government case to be misconceived on a fundamental point, and for the court to be wrong they instead woukd be the ones fundamentally in error.
They are - they confused UK law and international law.
You do realise that using phrases such as "so to do..." does not give us confidence that your legal knowledge is greater than that of the three most senior members of the UK judiciary.
I don't doubt that they have more legal experience than I do. Experience doesn't confer infallibility.
True enough. Judges make mistakes all the time. As do governments, a good thing we're having this process to iron things out,
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
"Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE."
That's not the case if the blockers are in the HoL, not the HoC.
That is true but I was outlining a position where it is very likely we could see Brexit dumped completely.
Most people on here seem to think it could not happen but I think it is very possible indeed.
The people were told that Article 50 would be triggered the day after the referendum. If anything, that is what they voted for. The government, therefore, failed to deliver on what it promised. If it had done as it promised, none of this would have happened. But it didn't; it lied. When a government lies, the only protection we have is our Parliament and the courts.
Yes we were told that and with the benefit of hindsight it is a pity that Cameron did not keep that promise even although he had not done any preparatory work or allowed it to be done. But he was right to acknowledge that the decision had been made. This is not a question for Parliament any more. Of course they still have several very important roles.
They can challenge and test the government's negotiating position. At least in theory they could direct the government to seek membership of the Customs Union for example. If the government does not obey they can dismiss it.
They also require to pass legislation to repeal the ECA and make provision for the thousands of other cases where EU law has become our law. They have autonomy and discretion as to how they do this.
But the decision to leave has been made.
Yep. And yesterday's judgment does not change that. But Cameron's lies show just how important it is that parliament holds the executive to account, especially when the rights of private citizens are at stake.
I agree but what has that got to do with the decision of the Court that Article 50 cannot be triggered without Parliamentary consent?
The executive cannot be given a free had to initiate a process that will remove rights from private citizens without the approval of Parliament. The executive cannot be trusted.
In what way is 'being bound to the decision of the people' 'having a free hand'?
It isn't. I am talking about the process. Invoking Article 50 is part of that process. The government has already broken its pledge about invoking Article 50. It was a pledge made as clearly as anything written in a pamphlet. The government cannot be trusted.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
As I posted last night the link between registerd party affiliation and votes accrued would have to be totally and utterly shattered for Clinton to lose Nevada.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
"Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE."
That's not the case if the blockers are in the HoL, not the HoC.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
Same thing.
"will of the people" is rubbish, "decision of half of the people" is nearer.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
Do you fear the LDs win the GE?
No but I do fear that we will see a hung Parliament in which the Article 50 vote cannot be passed.
I very much hope that Jack's ARSE is right. But it is worth remembering that it was wrong about the EU referendum and quite a way out in the Scottish independence referendum. Maybe it is less than robust for what are essentially binary choices.
Having just heard Nick Clegg it's becomming clear that the new strategy of the REMAINERS is to say we respect the wishes of the winning LEAVERS but ensure that this involves minimal change. No one specified what BREXIT means so Clegg's position is perfectly reasonable.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
"Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE."
That's not the case if the blockers are in the HoL, not the HoC.
That is true but I was outlining a position where it is very likely we could see Brexit dumped completely.
Most people on here seem to think it could not happen but I think it is very possible indeed.
Based on a ge result? But surely the Tories woukd win a ge and will promise to trigger Brexit even if it means abolishing the lords or something. Will labour not commit to respecting the referendum too? It's possible, but I don't see Brexit frustration as likely myself.
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
Do you fear the LDs win the GE?
How is the hand by the way?
Immobile
Fortunately my right hand still works. And I'm OK at one hand typing
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
Do you fear the LDs win the GE?
No but I do fear that we will see a hung Parliament in which the Article 50 vote cannot be passed.
Not a chance. The Tories will win the triple figure majority. Corbyn is the strongest firewall imaginable.
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
"Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE."
That's not the case if the blockers are in the HoL, not the HoC.
That is true but I was outlining a position where it is very likely we could see Brexit dumped completely.
Most people on here seem to think it could not happen but I think it is very possible indeed.
Based on a ge result? But surely the Tories woukd win a ge and will promise to trigger Brexit even if it means abolishing the lords or something. Will labour not commit to respecting the referendum too? It's possible, but I don't see Brexit frustration as likely myself.
The scenario would be a LibDem landslide, and as a betting site we are best placed to assess its likelihood accordingly.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
"will of the people" is rubbish, "decision of half of the people" is nearer.
As I said yesterday more people voted in favour of Brexit than have ever voted for a winning party in any general election in Britain since Parliament was formed.
If you want to claim that there is no democracy at all in Britain and never has been then feel free but you cannot be partial in choosing which votes are legitimate and which are not as reflections of the will of the people.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
Same thing.
"will of the people" is rubbish, "decision of half of the people" is nearer.
If you want to be that technical you should say half the people of those eligible to vote who bothered to turnout.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
Same thing.
"will of the people" is rubbish, "decision of half of the people" is nearer.
A decision of a body is a decision of that body, no matter the size of the majority it passes by.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
Did he? I either didn't know that, or have forgotten it.
In which case, it makes it an even more interesting question ...
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
Same thing.
"will of the people" is rubbish, "decision of half of the people" is nearer.
A decision of a body is a decision of that body, no matter the size of the majority it passes by.
Except when it wasn't given a (legal) decision in the first place.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
An interesting counter-factual; I don't know but suspect most of the fuss would have come from the leave side. If you read Farage's comments in the days before the vote it is clear that he was intending to use the advisory nature of the vote as his legitimacy to argue on, in the event of the narrow Remain win that he was obviously (and said that he was) expecting.
He would have been wrong to do so. The manner in which Cameron rigged the referendum would have been a different matter.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a complete dossier of how much they would concede. That's because we all wanted them to succeed.
Unfortunately, 'We want to delay things and then 'reluctantly' vote against,' is definitely the aim of some. They want a fig leaf to subvert the will of the people.
Why not be honest and say outright ... "The people don't agree with me, but as I know I'm more intelligent and have better judgement than anyone else, I should make the important decisions."
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
If Parliament votes on whether A50 can be invoked, that implies that it can decide that it can't. Since that would frustrate the will of the people, the very holding of an A50 vote would be undemocratic.
Since your earlier very similar post, I see thist you have reworded "decision of the people" to "will of the people"
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
Who is atop the infamous Lewes bonfire this year?
Trump I think. I am sure I saw a headline to that effect a few days ago.
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
Who is atop the infamous Lewes bonfire this year?
I wish I knew, it is always a pleasant surprise to find out as Alex Salmond and others can attest.
It is alleged that Ian Pailsey praised the bonfire burning of The Pope, so the big man was burnt in effigy the following year.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. Their job is to understand things better than voters, who are busy getting on with other things. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
In particular, they have already agreed to the "how" when they passed the Lisbon Treaty.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
Done-sh. Could include Cuban American support for the republicans.
Saying Florida and Nevada are 'done' when Trump leads Nevada in the RCP poll average and is tied in Florida is ridiculous, as the article I posted yesterday said early voting is often a poor predictor of the eventual winner
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
Done-sh. Could include Cuban American support for the republicans.
Saying Florida and Nevada are 'done' when Trump leads Nevada in the RCP poll average and is tied in Florida is ridiculous, as the article I posted yesterday said early voting is often a poor predictor of the eventual winner
Where do you see the massive fracture in Nevada Voter Registration to Votes coming from?
Sorry - yes, I agree with that. But those who brought the case are wrong. They cannot prevent Brexit, as the judgment made absolutely clear. The only way Brexit does not happen from here is if the British people change their minds. And that is highly unlikely.
I wish I shared your confidence.
There are two stages to this obviously (I am ignoring the idea that the Government might win its appeal as I have already said I think the court decision was correct)
The first stage is that Parliament has some sort of vote on Article 50. If May wins that then everything goes ahead as planned but I am not convinced she will.
The second stage is that if she loses then she calls a GE. At that point my faith in Brexit evaporates completely. We already know that GE's are simply no reflection of people's views on a specific subject. There is absolutely no reason to be sure that a Parliament after a GE will be a reflection of the people's views on Brexit. Indeed we already know that the current Parliament would not be reflecting people's views on Brexit or we would never have got to the point of needing a GE.
But of course the remain side will be sure to use that as the excuse to abandon the referendum result and claim they are reflecting the will of the people.
After which - who knows. Complete chaos I would suggest.
I would agree with this. Fundamentally the problem is that the result of the referendum went counter to the result the government wanted to get. Cameron took a stupid gamble that went wrong and now we're left with this muddle.
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
I do not agree with those who think May should have put this through Parliament already. Whilst it is unlikely that the Commons would vote down A50 invocation, the Lords may well do everything in their power to delay it. More significantly, we already hear calls from the opponents of Brexit (and some supporters of Brexit) for the government to set out its negotiating position in full.
You go into any negotiation with:
- a starting position - an ideal outcome (which may be the same as your starting position) - a minimum acceptable outcome (which will be somewhat less than your starting position for there to be any chance of a successful negotiation)
You tell the other side your starting position. You do not reveal the others. If the other side knows your minimum acceptable outcome they are likely to regard that as the starting point, because they know you are willing to give up everything else you are demanding. This minimises the concessions they have to make to you in order to do the deal. Indeed, in some situations it may mean you don't even get your minimum acceptable outcome.
The starting position is never the finishing position and it is rare for a negotiator to achieve their ideal outcome. If the government sets out those publicly in advance, opponents will undoubtedly say that the government has failed in its negotiations and that this justifies voting down the deal in Parliament. If the government sets out its minimum acceptable outcome the final deal is likely to be worse for the UK than if they had not. Again, opponents will undoubtedly say it is a terrible deal, again justifying rejection by Parliament.
There is a Remain majority in the Commons. Whilst few MPs would vote against A50 invocation, there are a significant number who want to frustrate the process. The government could well be forced to make concessions in order to get an A50 bill through Parliament. And the Lords could delay everything.
Parliament has been promised a debate on the outcome of the negotiations. Indeed, if the result is a new treaty between the UK and the EU, it has to go before Parliament. Neither the electorate nor Parliament needs to know the government's negotiating position in advance in order to judge whether or not the outcome is a good deal.
In my view this is not an overmighty executive trying to ignore Parliament democracy. This is simply the executive trying to put the democratic decision made in the referendum into practice and ensure that the process is not sabotaged by the parliamentary anti-Brexit majority. The legal action is an attempt to slow down Brexit with the objective of stopping it completely.
I do not agree with the High Court. I understand their arguments but I think they have got it wrong and, in so doing, have moved us a step further away from democracy and towards krytocracy. I hope the Supreme Court reverses the High Court's decision.
Done-sh. Could include Cuban American support for the republicans.
Saying Florida and Nevada are 'done' when Trump leads Nevada in the RCP poll average and is tied in Florida is ridiculous, as the article I posted yesterday said early voting is often a poor predictor of the eventual winner
Well, it was in Nevada when the Dems had a Clark County lead of 55k at the end of early voting in 2012.
The polls were out in Nevada too in 2012 because they didn't have a large enough Hispanic sample.
Saying that, what the current betting odds for Clinton winning Nevada? If the polls are like that at the facts on the ground say something else, that would be a decent bet.
On Florida, I am reluctant to agree Clinton has definitely won as well. Nevada is much smaller though, so that much of a firewall would be extremely difficult to breach without a great GOTV operation...
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
A general election is not a referendum.
We are a representative democracy, a General Election would trump a referendum.
I keep asking what the point is of debating Article 50. "We're important so we want to know," isn't enough. When we used to have Summit meetings between East and West, no one demanded that the US President or British PM give a
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
A general election is not a referendum.
We are a representative democracy, a General Election would trump a referendum.
For weeks us Remainers have been accused of being stuck somewhere in the stages of grief.
It appears scanning the newspapers that Leavers are now experiencing the same thing as they fail to come to terms with the constitution of their own country which they wanted back.
Yes - David is arguing that the frequency of referendums has de facto changed the constitution, but as this relies on all kinds of tinpot referendums on whether this or that place should have a mayor, etc., I don't think the quantitative argument works, Qualitatively, if the Government had intended the advisory referendum to be considered mandatory, they should have mentioned it in advance, and ideally not used the word "advisory" at all.
Ashcroft focus group amusing and interesting as usual:
Interesting article from Herdson on the court judgement re referendum but I am afraid he vastly overrates the status of referenda in the British constitution. They are essentially an alien populist device with little weight in law or politics, which is partly why they are deemed advisory. He admits his law is rusty and to rest a whole court judgement on the Referendum would be desperately bad law indeed. On a purely practical level it might also be pointed out that Referenda are usually hijacked by those who want to give the government a kicking (as this one undoubtedly was) yet even here the result was essentially a pretty even split., To give this unedifying exercise all the dignity of law and talk about it in hushed tones as expressing the sovereignty of the people is ridiculous. We have a parliamentary democracy and that is the end of it.
Done-sh. Could include Cuban American support for the republicans.
Saying Florida and Nevada are 'done' when Trump leads Nevada in the RCP poll average and is tied in Florida is ridiculous, as the article I posted yesterday said early voting is often a poor predictor of the eventual winner
Well, it was in Nevada when the Dems had a Clark County lead of 55k at the end of early voting in 2012.
The polls were out in Nevada too in 2012 because they didn't have a large enough Hispanic sample.
Saying that, what the current betting odds for Clinton winning Nevada? If the polls are like that at the facts on the ground say something else, that would be a decent bet.
On Florida, I am reluctant to agree Clinton has definitely won as well. Nevada is much smaller though, so that much of a firewall would be extremely difficult to breach without a great GOTV operation...
Trump outperformed the polls in Nevada in the primaries and won the Hispanic vote in the state against expectations, he will not beat Hillary with Hispanics but may do better than predicted
Isn't that the basis of Parliamentary democracy? We do leave decisions to our elected representatives. We have decided to leave the EU. It is now up to our elected representatives to sort out how that will happen and under what terms.
Yes, but none of that requires them to vote again in a vote that could mean that we don't.
We are leaving the European Union.
Maybe not, if Parliament gets to vote again.
Parliament isn't going to vote on anything more than enabling A50. Which will sail through both houses it seems. Any MP defying their constituents will find themselves out of a job within a few months when the government calls an election and UKIP stand against the traitors. Anyway, it's all moot because a vote will easily be won, the government is frit for no reason.
Which has been the accepted PB Releaver position since the matter first came up.
What I don't understand is why May or Nick Timothy didn't get it also? Perhaps they were still high-fiving at the cleverness of having appointed the three stooges.
Maybe they understand the intrinsically anti-democratic manner of a further parliamentary vote, even if it were politically certain to pass.
Cock up, not conspiracy. They were new to the game, in shock, and didn't handle things as they ought to have.
As for this whole secret squirrel overturning the will of the people bolleaux, calm down. MPs want to be involved in the process, not frustrate it.
If they are able to frustrate it, it's anti-democratic whether they choose to frustrate it or not.
That is a slightly odd view. What if a party came to a general election on a promise of, say, free owls for all and thereby won a landslide.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
A general election is not a referendum.
We are a representative democracy, a General Election would trump a referendum.
No, it wouldn't. General elections elect people to decide policies, referendums decide policies directly.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
PA MI OH FL PA NH OH PA (Clinton/Obama mega rally)
Two visits to Ohio is interesting.
That's a defensive strategy. Only the three visits to OH and FL are marginally offensive. The hubris of visiting deep crimson states to help down ticket races seems to have gone which is probably a good thing.
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Or that her predecessor was very crap, did no preparation, then lied about triggering Article 50.....
PA MI OH FL PA NH OH PA (Clinton/Obama mega rally)
Two visits to Ohio is interesting.
According to an article I read, the internal campaign polls for Ohio are slightly better for Clinton than the public ones, and they think there is a real chance that they can get enough people out for early voting to give them a chance. Makes sense!
Why don't the government have a 2 line bill with a 12 month sunset clause which gives it permission to trigger Art 50 ?
Is it really that difficult ?
It seems so obvious unless we're missing something, other than Mrs May is a bit crap, as evidenced by the tack taken by Government lawyers in the case.
Perhaps they are quite happy for the ire to be directed at the "establishment" for 48 hrs before heading down this path..
Comments
That it is possible is not a reason not to do it that way. The only question surely is how it can legally be done. In the absence of a binding referendum, any option involves the possibility, albeit slight, that the result won't be implemented.
It appears scanning the newspapers that Leavers are now experiencing the same thing as they fail to come to terms with the constitution of their own country which they wanted back.
Get on with a one line bill - or does May not trust her parliamentary daftspeople ?
Nevada is done :
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
That's not the case if the blockers are in the HoL, not the HoC.
If the referendum bill had said the result was mandatory rather than advisory, would it have passed into law?
Most people on here seem to think it could not happen but I think it is very possible indeed.
If only they could be burnt in effigy in Sussex tomorrow night, though I guess that Cameron, Farage, Osborne, Corbyn or even some American politicians might feature tomorrow night instead.
Fortunately my right hand still works. And I'm OK at one hand typing
If you want to claim that there is no democracy at all in Britain and never has been then feel free but you cannot be partial in choosing which votes are legitimate and which are not as reflections of the will of the people.
In which case, it makes it an even more interesting question ...
Florida is done.
https://twitter.com/steveschale?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author
So, the implication is that, yes, it is possible they were saying it would be ok to pass into law.
Or indeed of course any policy.
They could then theoretically fail to implement that policy so they tend not to as they would be punished by the electorate next time round (cf LibDems).
Give me a P
Give me a A
What have you got?
Gap between her and Trump has narrowed and Democrats more likely to vote than a couple of days ago.
I would have accepted it, as I said before the vote. Remain would have had to mean remain and doing it properly.
It is alleged that Ian Pailsey praised the bonfire burning of The Pope, so the big man was burnt in effigy the following year.
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/02/english-town-plans-burn-36ft-trump-effigy-weekend/
You go into any negotiation with:
- a starting position
- an ideal outcome (which may be the same as your starting position)
- a minimum acceptable outcome (which will be somewhat less than your starting position for there to be any chance of a successful negotiation)
You tell the other side your starting position. You do not reveal the others. If the other side knows your minimum acceptable outcome they are likely to regard that as the starting point, because they know you are willing to give up everything else you are demanding. This minimises the concessions they have to make to you in order to do the deal. Indeed, in some situations it may mean you don't even get your minimum acceptable outcome.
The starting position is never the finishing position and it is rare for a negotiator to achieve their ideal outcome. If the government sets out those publicly in advance, opponents will undoubtedly say that the government has failed in its negotiations and that this justifies voting down the deal in Parliament. If the government sets out its minimum acceptable outcome the final deal is likely to be worse for the UK than if they had not. Again, opponents will undoubtedly say it is a terrible deal, again justifying rejection by Parliament.
There is a Remain majority in the Commons. Whilst few MPs would vote against A50 invocation, there are a significant number who want to frustrate the process. The government could well be forced to make concessions in order to get an A50 bill through Parliament. And the Lords could delay everything.
Parliament has been promised a debate on the outcome of the negotiations. Indeed, if the result is a new treaty between the UK and the EU, it has to go before Parliament. Neither the electorate nor Parliament needs to know the government's negotiating position in advance in order to judge whether or not the outcome is a good deal.
In my view this is not an overmighty executive trying to ignore Parliament democracy. This is simply the executive trying to put the democratic decision made in the referendum into practice and ensure that the process is not sabotaged by the parliamentary anti-Brexit majority. The legal action is an attempt to slow down Brexit with the objective of stopping it completely.
I do not agree with the High Court. I understand their arguments but I think they have got it wrong and, in so doing, have moved us a step further away from democracy and towards krytocracy. I hope the Supreme Court reverses the High Court's decision.
The polls were out in Nevada too in 2012 because they didn't have a large enough Hispanic sample.
Saying that, what the current betting odds for Clinton winning Nevada? If the polls are like that at the facts on the ground say something else, that would be a decent bet.
On Florida, I am reluctant to agree Clinton has definitely won as well. Nevada is much smaller though, so that much of a firewall would be extremely difficult to breach without a great GOTV operation...
Well, exactly.
What will the manifesto say?
"a government for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is"
Will £350m for the NHS appear in any party literature?
Excellent, Mr Herdson.
I'm not interested in a charity bet but I'll have a tenner with you directly at evens if you like, on the current High Court case.
I pay you if the decision is that parliament has to vote in order that Article 50 is invoked; you pay me if it's that parliament does not have to?
So, David, want double or quits on the appeal?
Ashcroft focus group amusing and interesting as usual:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/11/do-we-want-him-smacking-the-queen-of-englands-butt-my-final-pre-election-focus-groups-in-ohio/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9_plczn9sE
Is it really that difficult ?
PA
MI
OH
FL
PA
NH
OH
PA (Clinton/Obama mega rally)
Two visits to Ohio is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3ReKyOS8-U