Labour demands a plan from the government, accountability to Parliament throughout negotiations and a meaningful vote on the final deal.
Err No Jeremey, negotiations don't work that way.
The man is utterly clueless.
If Corbyn wants to go down that road, then can someone ask him the question 'If at the end of the negotiations and a settlement agreed, Parliment vote down the agreement, what happens then?'
Starmer all over the place on BBC - the opposition are in total chaos
"BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say. "
I have said a zillion times that both campaigns were lamentable. Having read 'All Out War', I respect Cummings' skills as a political operator, but otherwise he's just as prone to daftness as any of us. I've a good deal of experience in complex negotiations and I think this idea is completely impractical.
Politically, it is perfectly clear that Article 50 is not retractable.
Nor should it be legally. If it could be retractable, that would encourage the EU to enter into bad faith negotiations/no negotiations. Article 50 only works if it is certain the party using it will leave in 2 years.
The EU doesn't work like that - there are umpteen examples of the clock on apparently irrevocable deadlines being stopped. Naturally it takes two to tango and Britain would need to want it as well, for example because Parliament had voted to reject the terms initially negotiated. It is possible to argue that in that situation the EU would be fed up and would not agree to stop the clock, but I'm pretty familiar with the EU and IMO they would agree inthat situation, for a reasonable period.
Ahhh! Extend the period of uncertainty. I thought that was bad for us.
There are times where you just have to get on and do it. Odd as it may seem, it is not possible to have a solution that suits all the people.
Odd that there is a complete lack of accountability on the advice and judgements of the department headed by the Attorney General Jeremy Wright. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on law and yet they completely misjudged the law in this area. An honourable person at the head of such a failure would resign.
There are issues around how the Referendum legislation was drafted, for sure. But once the law around Article 50 had been questioned, the Gov. were bound to pursue the appeal on the most important constitutional questions in a generation.
That the Supreme Court were able to deliver a judgment that flew in the face of what the Govt. might have WANTED it to give is a very healthy thing. And not a resigning issue.
Well, quite. Any lawyer can only do the best he can with the case he's got. Once side or the other is going to lose, and that doesn't mean they were badly advised or had rubbish advocates.
Besides, if Jeremy Wright resigned, who'd replace him? The government benches aren't exactly packed with high-powered lawyers.
"What of the referendum? Well, not much. It was in legal terms an advisory referendum and the government – formally at least – is free to ignore it. Indeed, it is easy to construct an alternative history where the referendum went the other way but David Cameron was ousted in favour of a Brexiteering Prime Minister. Would Prime Minister Leadsom really have been legally entitled to disregard popular opinion and, without seeking the sanction of Parliament, take Britain out of the EU anyway? Logically the scope of the royal prerogative cannot be determined by the result of a non-binding referendum. Either Parliament has a say in this or it doesn’t."
I think *something* needs to be done to make ALL future referendums binding, no matter what the subject. A non binding referendum is a most pernicious vehicle as it allows a government to ignore a result if it wins, and implement a result if it loses - which although technically legally correct is completely outside any sort of natural justice wrt democracy.
This situation must never be allowed to happen again.
Better still, don't have any more referendums. It was hardly a showcase for an informed democratic process.
Politically, it is perfectly clear that Article 50 is not retractable.
Nor should it be legally. If it could be retractable, that would encourage the EU to enter into bad faith negotiations/no negotiations. Article 50 only works if it is certain the party using it will leave in 2 years.
The EU doesn't work like that - there are umpteen examples of the clock on apparently irrevocable deadlines being stopped. Naturally it takes two to tango and Britain would need to want it as well, for example because Parliament had voted to reject the terms initially negotiated. It is possible to argue that in that situation the EU would be fed up and would not agree to stop the clock, but I'm pretty familiar with the EU and IMO they would agree inthat situation, for a reasonable period.
Odd that there is a complete lack of accountability on the advice and judgements of the department headed by the Attorney General Jeremy Wright. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on law and yet they completely misjudged the law in this area. An honourable person at the head of such a failure would resign.
I think this is right, in a key matter of law the government has utterly failed. I think Wright's position - if he was the one who did not enact the binding on the EU ref is indeed untenable.
The bitter irony for Remoaners is that their hysteria, and their attempts to derail the referendum (including these court cases), have propelled us towards a Harder Brexit than might otherwise have happened.
Because the Establishment looked like they were trying to sabotage the vote, TMay had to signal to Leavers (the majority) and her party, that Brexit really meant Brexit which reallly meant Hard Brexit.
So well done Gina Miller and Jolyon Maugham, et al. You helped us leave the Single Market, as well as the EU.
The government is the Establishment. We are leaving the single market because it is not compatible with limiting freedom of movement for EU citizens.
I think there was room for a Softer Brexit, if the Remoaners hadn't talked about scuppering the referendum altogether. Then Soft Brexit became politically impossible. TMay had to talk tough.
There is till room for a softer Brexit, but May has made it very clear that she does not want one. She wants to limit free movement for EU citizens. That is her priority.
She calculated that for social and political reasons, and the stability of our democracy, she must demonstrably bring immigration numbers down off the back of this vote and change the public tide of opinion on the subject, even at risk of greater economic disruption in the short-term.
Politically, it is perfectly clear that Article 50 is not retractable.
Nor should it be legally. If it could be retractable, that would encourage the EU to enter into bad faith negotiations/no negotiations. Article 50 only works if it is certain the party using it will leave in 2 years.
The EU doesn't work like that - there are umpteen examples of the clock on apparently irrevocable deadlines being stopped. Naturally it takes two to tango and Britain would need to want it as well, for example because Parliament had voted to reject the terms initially negotiated. It is possible to argue that in that situation the EU would be fed up and would not agree to stop the clock, but I'm pretty familiar with the EU and IMO they would agree inthat situation, for a reasonable period.
Ahhh! Extend the period of uncertainty. I thought that was bad for us.
There are times where you just have to get on and do it. Odd as it may seem, it is not possible to have a solution that suits all the people.
That's why PR is a conceptual oxymoron.
Also have to rely on agreemet between 27 different voices to extend the period.
"BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say. "
As a matter of base politics, the Lib Dem position makes perfect sense. 20-25% of British voters (a very rough guess) are hardcore Remoaners. They want back in to the EU, and they'd happily ignore the vote if they could.
See this incredible Guardian article where the writer literally says "just ignore the vote":
25% of voters is a lot of voters. No one is speaking for them. The Lib Dems could, and should, surely?
In addition, they're not evenly spread, but clump up nicely - essential for FPTP success. And you're right - all strands of opinion need a voice, this is a significant chunk of the electorate, and all Governments need (functioning) Opposition - if for no other reason than to force them to think things through and take account of the minority.
Odd that there is a complete lack of accountability on the advice and judgements of the department headed by the Attorney General Jeremy Wright. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on law and yet they completely misjudged the law in this area. An honourable person at the head of such a failure would resign.
There are issues around how the Referendum legislation was drafted, for sure. But once the law around Article 50 had been questioned, the Gov. were bound to pursue the appeal on the most important constitutional questions in a generation.
That the Supreme Court were able to deliver a judgment that flew in the face of what the Govt. might have WANTED it to give is a very healthy thing. And not a resigning issue.
1. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was created by Attorney General Jeremy Wright's department and has been found to be deficient by the Supreme Court. 2. When the case for a parliamentary vote was made, Jeremy Wright's department had the opportunity to review the law and decide whether to accept or fight. His department chose to fight. 3. After the first stage was lost, Jeremy Wright's department decided to appeal and even ran the extra risk of allowing in the regional assemblies to become part of the action.
Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Are you joking?? The vote will be on 1. Accepting the deal HMG has negotiated and exiting the EU, or 2. Defaulting to WTO and crashing out of the EU
That's it. Parliament won't be given the chance to stop Brexit entirely. Labour (I think, you can't really tell these days) accepts that.
It's not as simple as that, sorry. Britain withdraws only when a deal to withdraw has been agreed by Government and Parliament, or if either Britain OR the remaining EU fail to agree to continue negotiations. I think it is unlikely that the Government will call time if Parliament has rejected its position, and very unlikely that the rest of the EU would do so.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
"BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say. "
As a matter of base politics, the Lib Dem position makes perfect sense. 20-25% of British voters (a very rough guess) are hardcore Remoaners. They want back in to the EU, and they'd happily ignore the vote if they could.
See this incredible Guardian article where the writer literally says "just ignore the vote":
25% of voters is a lot of voters. No one is speaking for them. The Lib Dems could, and should, surely?
In addition, they're not evenly spread, but clump up nicely - essential for FPTP success. And you're right - all strands of opinion need a voice, this is a significant chunk of the electorate, and all Governments need (functioning) Opposition - if for no other reason than to force them to think things through and take account of the minority.
Yep, it's arguably the moral course of action. Speak for these people (as Labour seems incapable). It could lead to a remarkable Lib Dem revival.
and the death of labour... sounds better and better.
Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Are you joking?? The vote will be on 1. Accepting the deal HMG has negotiated and exiting the EU, or 2. Defaulting to WTO and crashing out of the EU
That's it. Parliament won't be given the chance to stop Brexit entirely. Labour (I think, you can't really tell these days) accepts that.
It's not as simple as that, sorry. Britain withdraws only when a deal to withdraw has been agreed by Government and Parliament, or if either Britain OR the remaining EU fail to agree to continue negotiations. I think it is unlikely that the Government will call time if Parliament has rejected its position, and very unlikely that the rest of the EU would do so.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
I disagree.
I can see a situation where UK thought it was better to get on with the rest of our life rather having everything on hold for an unspecified period.
Remember, we can do nothing with third parties until we leave. We have no input or relevance in the EU while we are exiting.
Odd that there is a complete lack of accountability on the advice and judgements of the department headed by the Attorney General Jeremy Wright. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on law and yet they completely misjudged the law in this area. An honourable person at the head of such a failure would resign.
I think this is right, in a key matter of law the government has utterly failed. I think Wright's position - if he was the one who did not enact the binding on the EU ref is indeed untenable.
Supreme Court has established constitutional principle which will bind this and all future governments, put the devolved assemblies back in their box, and paved a simple way for govt to execute Article 50. No requirement to be 'more accountable to Parliament in shaping BREXIT'.
In 1955 Sweden held a referendum on whether to change from driving on the left to driving on the right. The result was 83% against. Eight years later the Swedish Parliament decided to make the change anyway.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power.
We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member.
The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Once activated, A50 is a ticking clock. We are out of the EU after 2 years, deal or no deal.
Wrong. The time limit can be extended if both sides agree, and its not yet been decided if A50 is retractable.
Politically, it is perfectly clear that Article 50 is not retractable.
Nor should it be legally. If it could be retractable, that would encourage the EU to enter into bad faith negotiations/no negotiations. Article 50 only works if it is certain the party using it will leave in 2 years.
As we have just seen, legalities often trump politics.
In 1955 Sweden held a referendum on whether to change from driving on the left to driving on the right. The result was 83% against. Eight years later the Swedish Parliament decided to make the change anyway.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Odd that there is a complete lack of accountability on the advice and judgements of the department headed by the Attorney General Jeremy Wright. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on law and yet they completely misjudged the law in this area. An honourable person at the head of such a failure would resign.
I think this is right, in a key matter of law the government has utterly failed. I think Wright's position - if he was the one who did not enact the binding on the EU ref is indeed untenable.
The bitter irony for Remoaners is that their hysteria, and their attempts to derail the referendum (including these court cases), have propelled us towards a Harder Brexit than might otherwise have happened.
Because the Establishment looked like they were trying to sabotage the vote, TMay had to signal to Leavers (the majority) and her party, that Brexit really meant Brexit which reallly meant Hard Brexit.
So well done Gina Miller and Jolyon Maugham, et al. You helped us leave the Single Market, as well as the EU.
The government is the Establishment. We are leaving the single market because it is not compatible with limiting freedom of movement for EU citizens.
I think there was room for a Softer Brexit, if the Remoaners hadn't talked about scuppering the referendum altogether. Then Soft Brexit became politically impossible. TMay had to talk tough.
There is till room for a softer Brexit, but May has made it very clear that she does not want one. She wants to limit free movement for EU citizens. That is her priority.
Perhaps. But if the Remainers and Soft Brexiteers had shown a united political front immediately after the vote, and called for Single Market membership, she would have found it a lot more difficult to sell Hard Brexit.
Instead the Remainers went mad and tried to have the vote reversed or ignored. This pissed off potential Soft Brexit allies, who rallied behind Any Brexit, allowing TMay political room to push for a clean break.
All history now. We're out.
Amazing. Somehow it's always Remainers' fault. You'd think that Leavers would have got the hang of this taking control lark by now.
I'm just making a factual observation. Calm down.
Speculation about hypothetical circumstances is hardly a factual observation. Even if you are a novelist.
The bitter irony for Remoaners is that their hysteria, and their attempts to derail the referendum (including these court cases), have propelled us towards a Harder Brexit than might otherwise have happened.
Because the Establishment looked like they were trying to sabotage the vote, TMay had to signal to Leavers (the majority) and her party, that Brexit really meant Brexit which reallly meant Hard Brexit.
So well done Gina Miller and Jolyon Maugham, et al. You helped us leave the Single Market, as well as the EU.
The government is the Establishment. We are leaving the single market because it is not compatible with limiting freedom of movement for EU citizens.
I think there was room for a Softer Brexit, if the Remoaners hadn't talked about scuppering the referendum altogether. Then Soft Brexit became politically impossible. TMay had to talk tough.
We would have had soft Brexit had the EU compromised on freedom of movement.
It's the gaping chasm between how both the UK and the EU see the future that both led to the vote, and to the pursuit of a clean break.
It was a few idiots who proposed ignoring the referendum, e.g. Blair. Some Lib.Dems proposed a referendum on the terms of leaving, which is different. A compromise on this, reflecting the narrowness of the vote, would have carried the country with it.
We now have proposals that mainly appeal to the UKIP/Cash/Redwood/Mogg wing of politics. As was pointed out, they're ready to jump on any 'betrayal'. Meanwhile the official opposition seems to specialise in opposing colleagues.
I must say that I'm chuffed that the Supreme Court decided the case using exactly the point that I'd made in a pb thread header four months ago.
Otoh didn't you also tip the other side on betting value grounds?
I did. The fact that there were three Supreme Court judges on the other side of the argument shows that the decision was not a slam dunk, so I'm not the least embarrassed about that. It was a value loser (and yes, I lost money on this).
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power.
We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member.
The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
In my alternative history Major would have held a referendum on Maastricht with no opt-outs and won. We would have been democratically reconciled with the outcome and would now be at the heart of the EU.
"BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
snip
As a matter of base politics, the Lib Dem position makes perfect sense. 20-25% of British voters (a very rough guess) are hardcore Remoaners. They want back in to the EU, and they'd happily ignore the vote if they could.
See this incredible Guardian article where the writer literally says "just ignore the vote":
25% of voters is a lot of voters. No one is speaking for them. The Lib Dems could, and should, surely?
In addition, they're not evenly spread, but clump up nicely - essential for FPTP success. And you're right - all strands of opinion need a voice, this is a significant chunk of the electorate, and all Governments need (functioning) Opposition - if for no other reason than to force them to think things through and take account of the minority.
Yep, it's arguably the moral course of action. Speak for these people (as Labour seems incapable). It could lead to a remarkable Lib Dem revival.
and the death of labour... sounds better and better.
But also it is what many (most?) Liberals believe. They are Europeanists (is that a word?).
Sometimes I feel on this site we forget that not everything in politics is done for the best positioning/vote grabbing at any given moment.
No it didn't. It established boundaries on a constitutional settlement.
... as well as wasting time.
Or playing for time. The appeal gave the government an excuse to take their time working out their position vis a vis the single market etc. And the appeal has knocked on the head any attempt by the devolved assemblies to cause trouble.
And the constitutional principle is important too. These things aren't all just day to day party politics.
Are labour committing political suicide at present in regard to Copeland and Stoke by elections
Don't forget we follow politics very closely here. The average person in Copeland or Stoke won't - I remember the Bataclan happening and everyone assuming it was an event that would be to UKIP's advantage in Oldham West & Royton. This is similiar I think - so Labour's chances shouldn't be any materially different.
I must say that I'm chuffed that the Supreme Court decided the case using exactly the point that I'd made in a pb thread header four months ago.
Otoh didn't you also tip the other side on betting value grounds?
I did. The fact that there were three Supreme Court judges on the other side of the argument shows that the decision was not a slam dunk, so I'm not the least embarrassed about that. It was a value loser (and yes, I lost money on this).
Yes - Cheers for the tip.
I followed you in @ ~5/1
I don't regret taking that bet even though it lost.
Supreme Court has established constitutional principle which will bind this and all future governments, put the devolved assemblies back in their box, and paved a simple way for govt to execute Article 50. No requirement to be 'more accountable to Parliament in shaping BREXIT'.
I think this is an excellent result. It clarifies and strengthens the role of Parliament and clarifies and limits the role of the devolved assemblies without really hindering the process of Brexit in any meaningful way.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
Across la Manche, I've just brexited out of the French presidential market as it is too confusing for this punter of very little brain. The polls (and we know how reliable they have been!) point to Macron winning in the final two, but with no plausible mechanism for him actually to reach the final two. It's been a fun ride down from 20/1 to 7/2 but I'm out. Hat-tips to rcs, chris from paris and whoever else tipped him at 20s.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The lies and evasions, as well as weasel words and general air of telling people that what they were feeling/living in their everyday lives was not really happening, from people in power is what led to Brexit and Trump. It seems few of the Captain Bligh's have learned the lesson, and strut like peacocks at delaying and denying on technicalities...I don't think they are capable of change.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
He isn't laughing now.
Politics changes. Wonder who will be laughing in ten years time. My guess, no-one.
Despite being a Lib Dem member, I don't agree with Tim Farron's policy. Doesn't make sense and doesn't appear to be workable unless Article 50 can be revoked. Oh well, Parliament's going to have fun with this.
I'm a Lib Dem member too, but also a LEAVEr. I can't agree with my party's position at all. I'm unsure whether I will still be a member come renewal time.....
The bitter irony for Remoaners is that their hysteria, and their attempts to derail the referendum (including these court cases), have propelled us towards a Harder Brexit than might otherwise have happened.
Because the Establishment looked like they were trying to sabotage the vote, TMay had to signal to Leavers (the majority) and her party, that Brexit really meant Brexit which reallly meant Hard Brexit.
So well done Gina Miller and Jolyon Maugham, et al. You helped us leave the Single Market, as well as the EU.
The government is the Establishment. We are leaving the single market because it is not compatible with limiting freedom of movement for EU citizens.
I think there was room for a Softer Brexit, if the Remoaners hadn't talked about scuppering the referendum altogether. Then Soft Brexit became politically impossible. TMay had to talk tough.
There is till room for a softer Brexit, but May has made it very clear that she does not want one. She wants to limit free movement for EU citizens. That is her priority.
There is still room for a softer Brexit, but the "punishment beatings" Hard EU loons in Brussels have made it very clear they do not want one.
It's not up to them. This will be a negotiation between national governments.
Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Are you joking?? The vote will be on 1. Accepting the deal HMG has negotiated and exiting the EU, or 2. Defaulting to WTO and crashing out of the EU
That's it. Parliament won't be given the chance to stop Brexit entirely. Labour (I think, you can't really tell these days) accepts that.
It's not as simple as that, sorry. Britain withdraws only when a deal to withdraw has been agreed by Government and Parliament, or if either Britain OR the remaining EU fail to agree to continue negotiations. I think it is unlikely that the Government will call time if Parliament has rejected its position, and very unlikely that the rest of the EU would do so.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
It requires unanimity from all EU countries though doesn't it to extend the deadline?
Is the Starmer amendment you mention is like to happen?
Feels as though it would totally undermine Theresa May... And therefore Tory MPs pretty unlikely to go for it?
"The investigation into the serious sexual offence is in a preliminary phase and no-one has been charged yet, police spokeswoman Lisa Sannervik said.
Ms Sannervik said a teenager and two men in their 20s were arrested in the city of Uppsala, north of Stockholm, after police received calls about the ongoing streaming from users in a closed group.
Deputy chief prosecutor Magnus Berggren told Sweden's TV4 channel investigators do not have the footage showing the alleged assault, and urged anyone with access to it to contact authorities.
Are labour committing political suicide at present in regard to Copeland and Stoke by elections
Don't forget we follow politics very closely here. The average person in Copeland or Stoke won't - I remember the Bataclan happening and everyone assuming it was an event that would be to UKIP's advantage in Oldham West & Royton. This is similiar I think - so Labour's chances shouldn't be any materially different.
What price will you give me that UKIP go odds on in Stoke?
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The lies and evasions, as well as weasel words and general air of telling people that what they were feeling/living in their everyday lives was not really happening, from people in power is what led to Brexit and Trump. It seems few of the Captain Bligh's have learned the lesson, and strut like peacocks at delaying and denying on technicalities...I don't think they are capable of change.
And now the people in power are saying that everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant. Some things never change.
You can always tell how rattled the worst of the PB Tories are by how frothing and delusional the bravado in their ranting. By this measure I think we can safely say that this is a disaster for May.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
I disagree.
I can see a situation where UK thought it was better to get on with the rest of our life rather having everything on hold for an unspecified period.
Remember, we can do nothing with third parties until we leave. We have no input or relevance in the EU while we are exiting.
Not an ideal situation.
Of course. The UK might well decide that. I'm saying that at present we don't know what Parliament will think of an unknown deal in two years' time and it will be possible to delay the deadline pending further discussion if both sides wish.
Notet that the Supreme Court ruling explicitly "takes no view" on whether A50 is revocable or not. They saythe Government says it's not; as they've not been asked to rule on this and have not heard contrary arguments, they work on that assumption.
Supreme Court has established constitutional principle which will bind this and all future governments, put the devolved assemblies back in their box, and paved a simple way for govt to execute Article 50. No requirement to be 'more accountable to Parliament in shaping BREXIT'.
I think this is an excellent result. It clarifies and strengthens the role of Parliament and clarifies and limits the role of the devolved assemblies without really hindering the process of Brexit in any meaningful way.
I agree - which government (of any stripe) ever voluntarily gave up power? The government were right to fight this, the Supreme Court right to rule as they did. Its how the system works. If the government hadn't fought it they would have left an important question unanswered
For example, if the Tories win in 2020 on a manifesto commitment to pull us out of the ECHR, this ruling now means they would have to take it through parliament and couldn't simply Royal prerogative it.
Odd that there is a complete lack of accountability on the advice and judgements of the department headed by the Attorney General Jeremy Wright. They are supposed to be the Government's experts on law and yet they completely misjudged the law in this area. An honourable person at the head of such a failure would resign.
If every lawyer who lost a court case to a split decision lost his job there wouldn't be many lawyers left before long.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The lies and evasions, as well as weasel words and general air of telling people that what they were feeling/living in their everyday lives was not really happening, from people in power is what led to Brexit and Trump. It seems few of the Captain Bligh's have learned the lesson, and strut like peacocks at delaying and denying on technicalities...I don't think they are capable of change.
And now the people in power are saying that everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant. Some things never change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
You can always tell how rattled the worst of the PB Tories are by how frothing and delusional the bravado in their ranting. By this measure I think we can safely say that this is a disaster for May.
Some disaster - she will get A50 through Parliament and she has had clarification on the issue of devolved powers.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power.
We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member.
The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
In my alternative history Major would have held a referendum on Maastricht with no opt-outs and won. We would have been democratically reconciled with the outcome and would now be at the heart of the EU.
Major would only have offered the referendum with opt-outs, because he otherwise wouldn't have got the bill through his party.
Even if he had it would have been clearly defeated, just as it was in Denmark.
You can always tell how rattled the worst of the PB Tories are by how frothing and delusional the bravado in their ranting. By this measure I think we can safely say that this is a disaster for May.
Please clarify with examples as there are tories in the leave and remain camps.
You can always tell how rattled the worst of the PB Tories are by how frothing and delusional the bravado in their ranting. By this measure I think we can safely say that this is a disaster for May.
Are labour committing political suicide at present in regard to Copeland and Stoke by elections
Don't forget we follow politics very closely here. The average person in Copeland or Stoke won't - I remember the Bataclan happening and everyone assuming it was an event that would be to UKIP's advantage in Oldham West & Royton. This is similiar I think - so Labour's chances shouldn't be any materially different.
What price will you give me that UKIP go odds on in Stoke?
Not sure, in this market for enough already (On Labour )
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The lies and evasions, as well as weasel words and general air of telling people that what they were feeling/living in their everyday lives was not really happening, from people in power is what led to Brexit and Trump. It seems few of the Captain Bligh's have learned the lesson, and strut like peacocks at delaying and denying on technicalities...I don't think they are capable of change.
And now the people in power are saying that everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant. Some things never change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The lies and evasions, as well as weasel words and general air of telling people that what they were feeling/living in their everyday lives was not really happening, from people in power is what led to Brexit and Trump. It seems few of the Captain Bligh's have learned the lesson, and strut like peacocks at delaying and denying on technicalities...I don't think they are capable of change.
I see the prevailing mood nibbling away at many - from staunch Remain to fudging to acceptance here on PB and Twitter. The handful who still refuse to accept it/insult are certainly dwindling, and seem to be on the same trajectory as Corbynites. I hardly see pro-Jezza tweets now - it's just mostly silence.
The same but opposite has happened with Trump - he's gaining traction, its very noticeable in Times comments that were 90/10 negative - and more 60/40 already.
You can always tell how rattled the worst of the PB Tories are by how frothing and delusional the bravado in their ranting. By this measure I think we can safely say that this is a disaster for May.
Good. The more important amendment is however what Starmer envisaged earlier, that Parliament will have the power to reject a deal and instruct the Government to resume negotiations on terms. That is likely to get some Tory support (for varying reasons MPs will want the chance to object to the terms if they don't like them, without thereby triggering hard Brexit), and the EU would IMO be up for stopping the clock if that happened.
Are you joking?? The vote will be on 1. Accepting the deal HMG has negotiated and exiting the EU, or 2. Defaulting to WTO and crashing out of the EU
That's it. Parliament won't be given the chance to stop Brexit entirely. Labour (I think, you can't really tell these days) accepts that.
It's not as simple as that, sorry. Britain withdraws only when a deal to withdraw has been agreed by Government and Parliament, or if either Britain OR the remaining EU fail to agree to continue negotiations. I think it is unlikely that the Government will call time if Parliament has rejected its position, and very unlikely that the rest of the EU would do so.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
It requires unanimity from all EU countries though doesn't it to extend the deadline?
Is the Starmer amendment you mention is like to happen?
Feels as though it would totally undermine Theresa May... And therefore Tory MPs pretty unlikely to go for it?
It's a move that will allow Labour to say further down the line that it tried to ensure that the good things about the EU that people like were not given up as a result of Brexit but that the Tories voted them down. It's basically as cynical as the Farron position, but is less likely to work because Labour has no credibility on this or any other issue.
Will the government try to preempt the High Court case on withdrawal from the EEA by bundling authorisation to pull out into their A50 bill?
Surely the point with leaving the EEA is out of their hands. The only way it is possible to remain in the EEA is either to remain in the EU or to join EFTA. Since we are leaving the EU and cannot be assured of joining EFTA (even though it is the solution I prefer) then Parliament would be whistling in the wind if they passed a motion saying we must remain in the EEA.
@JGBS: MP @AngusMacNeilSNP tells 5 live that Scotland now has a mandate for #indyref2 - expects autumn 2018.
I think the SNP will lose, and we'll once again see a tectonic shift in the Scottish political plates.
Given well over 300,000 more Scots voted to stay in the UK than the EU, they've got an uphill task. And still no further on questions like 'currency'....
Will the government try to preempt the High Court case on withdrawal from the EEA by bundling authorisation to pull out into their A50 bill?
Surely the point with leaving the EEA is out of their hands. The only way it is possible to remain in the EEA is either to remain in the EU or to join EFTA. Since we are leaving the EU and cannot be assured of joining EFTA (even though it is the solution I prefer) then Parliament would be whistling in the wind if they passed a motion saying we must remain in the EEA.
If parliament authorised withdrawal from the EU but not the EEA then the executive would surely be obligated to attempt to join EFTA at least.
Maybe Corbyn's cunning plan is to step down in favour of someone like Clive Lewis before the general election, someone who is actually very left-wing but who seems centrist by comparison to himself and McDonnell.
In an alternative history, Blair would have offered a referendum on Lisbon and/or Brown wouldn't have rammed it through, and Cameron would have offered one on assuming power. We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member. The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
Very true. It is the lack of earlier referendums that contributed to where we are today.
Absolutely, over years and decades, with their lies and evasions, their duplicity and deceit, and their sneering contempt for voters and democracy, the europhiles slowly dug their own grave.
I remember when Nick Palmer came on here, the day Labour rammed Lisbon through parliament, and he laughed and chortled at the impotent PB eurosceptics.
If we'd voted Lisbon down then, we'd still be in a reformed EU now. And NPXMP wouldn't be reduced to sad, wistful daydreams about stopping Brexit.
The lies and evasions, as well as weasel words and general air of telling people that what they were feeling/living in their everyday lives was not really happening, from people in power is what led to Brexit and Trump. It seems few of the Captain Bligh's have learned the lesson, and strut like peacocks at delaying and denying on technicalities...I don't think they are capable of change.
And now the people in power are saying that everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant. Some things never change.
They have to interpret the result one way or the other. I don't think they are actually saying what you write there, but I realise you are determined to establish a meme
No, I am just saying things you do not particularly like.
That would be nothing new, but the people in power are not saying "everyone who voted Leave did so to control immigration and that the 48% who voted Remain are irrelevant", so I thought I would correct you
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
"BAGEHOT: In the event of an Out vote do you think the government would seek to hold another referendum, on the terms of Brexit?
DOMINIC CUMMINGS: I think that is a distinct possibility, yes. It’s obviously not something that we can force. We’re a campaign group. But I think it is perfectly possible that leadership candidates to replace David Cameron will say that they think there are good grounds for a new government team to offer the public a voice on what the deal looks like. And we obviously wouldn’t oppose that, if that’s what senior politicians want to offer. I think there’s a strong democratic case for it. There’s also the issue of the profound loss of trust that the establishment has suffered over the past 20-30 years. All parties have told lies about this subject, whether it’s John Major and David Cameron or Gordon Brown, Tony Blair and Nick Clegg. People have repeatedly promised referendums then not held referendums. So given that, it wouldn’t surprise me at all if leadership candidates to replace Cameron said: we need a mechanism so people can have confidence in what we say. "
As a matter of base politics, the Lib Dem position makes perfect sense. 20-25% of British voters (a very rough guess) are hardcore Remoaners. They want back in to the EU, and they'd happily ignore the vote if they could.
See this incredible Guardian article where the writer literally says "just ignore the vote":
25% of voters is a lot of voters. No one is speaking for them. The Lib Dems could, and should, surely?
Big difference between wanting-to-retain-the-status-quo Remainers and happy-to-sign-up-to-whatever-it-takes Rejoiners. Problem is, the LibDems don't seem to have figured that with 9 MPs they can't preserve the status quo. And the appetite for Rejoining is a tiny proportion of those 20-25% voters. How many SW seats do you think will return LibDem MPs next time if that is their manifesto? (And don't try arguing "well, we could just rejoin the bits of the EU we liked - Single Market, that sort of thing..." The EU has shown no evidence it would entertain this - and if it did, the cost would be exorbitant.)
Will the government try to preempt the High Court case on withdrawal from the EEA by bundling authorisation to pull out into their A50 bill?
Surely the point with leaving the EEA is out of their hands. The only way it is possible to remain in the EEA is either to remain in the EU or to join EFTA. Since we are leaving the EU and cannot be assured of joining EFTA (even though it is the solution I prefer) then Parliament would be whistling in the wind if they passed a motion saying we must remain in the EEA.
If parliament authorised withdrawal from the EU but not the EEA then the executive would surely be obligated to attempt to join EFTA at least.
The only case you could plausibly bring before the ECJ is on the revocability of A50 or not, as the ECJ is the guardian of the Treaties (and therefore of A50). I can quite easily see a Brit Remoaner making that appeal. Indeed it's probable.
Jo Maugham is already taking a case to that effect to the Irish High Court.
Comments
There are times where you just have to get on and do it. Odd as it may seem, it is not possible to have a solution that suits all the people.
That's why PR is a conceptual oxymoron.
Besides, if Jeremy Wright resigned, who'd replace him? The government benches aren't exactly packed with high-powered lawyers.
I believe she's right.
Err no. I'm not going to put my faith in that.
And you're right - all strands of opinion need a voice, this is a significant chunk of the electorate, and all Governments need (functioning) Opposition - if for no other reason than to force them to think things through and take account of the minority.
2. When the case for a parliamentary vote was made, Jeremy Wright's department had the opportunity to review the law and decide whether to accept or fight. His department chose to fight.
3. After the first stage was lost, Jeremy Wright's department decided to appeal and even ran the extra risk of allowing in the regional assemblies to become part of the action.
Obviously there would come a point when one or both sides got fed up with interminable negotiations and withdrawal would either happen or be abandoned. I think Brexit will indeed happen in the end, but not necessarily on the terms that the Government wants.
Will we get a picture of your buffed nails?
I can see a situation where UK thought it was better to get on with the rest of our life rather having everything on hold for an unspecified period.
Remember, we can do nothing with third parties until we leave. We have no input or relevance in the EU while we are exiting.
Not an ideal situation.
Supreme Court has established constitutional principle which will bind this and all future governments, put the devolved assemblies back in their box, and paved a simple way for govt to execute Article 50. No requirement to be 'more accountable to Parliament in shaping BREXIT'.
In 1955 Sweden held a referendum on whether to change from driving on the left to driving on the right. The result was 83% against. Eight years later the Swedish Parliament decided to make the change anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_driving_side_referendum,_1955
call an election
Ant to whom would an appeal go?
Would an appeal delay an act in parliament?
We'd probably have said 'no' and recast our EU membership, whilst remaining a member.
The less for Europhiles there is that denying the public a vote, or failing to respect their vote, only makes it worse in the end.
But I don't think that will happen.
We now have proposals that mainly appeal to the UKIP/Cash/Redwood/Mogg wing of politics. As was pointed out, they're ready to jump on any 'betrayal'. Meanwhile the official opposition seems to specialise in opposing colleagues.
Sometimes I feel on this site we forget that not everything in politics is done for the best positioning/vote grabbing at any given moment.
And the constitutional principle is important too. These things aren't all just day to day party politics.
I followed you in @ ~5/1
I don't regret taking that bet even though it lost.
Is the Starmer amendment you mention is like to happen?
Feels as though it would totally undermine Theresa May... And therefore Tory MPs pretty unlikely to go for it?
http://www.itv.com/news/2017-01-24/three-men-arrested-in-sweden-over-rape-streamed-live-on-facebook/
"The investigation into the serious sexual offence is in a preliminary phase and no-one has been charged yet, police spokeswoman Lisa Sannervik said.
Ms Sannervik said a teenager and two men in their 20s were arrested in the city of Uppsala, north of Stockholm, after police received calls about the ongoing streaming from users in a closed group.
Deputy chief prosecutor Magnus Berggren told Sweden's TV4 channel investigators do not have the footage showing the alleged assault, and urged anyone with access to it to contact authorities.
I can see a situation where UK thought it was better to get on with the rest of our life rather having everything on hold for an unspecified period.
Remember, we can do nothing with third parties until we leave. We have no input or relevance in the EU while we are exiting.
Not an ideal situation.
Of course. The UK might well decide that. I'm saying that at present we don't know what Parliament will think of an unknown deal in two years' time and it will be possible to delay the deadline pending further discussion if both sides wish.
Notet that the Supreme Court ruling explicitly "takes no view" on whether A50 is revocable or not. They saythe Government says it's not; as they've not been asked to rule on this and have not heard contrary arguments, they work on that assumption.
Strange times.
For example, if the Tories win in 2020 on a manifesto commitment to pull us out of the ECHR, this ruling now means they would have to take it through parliament and couldn't simply Royal prerogative it.
Even if he had it would have been clearly defeated, just as it was in Denmark.
The same but opposite has happened with Trump - he's gaining traction, its very noticeable in Times comments that were 90/10 negative - and more 60/40 already.
I assume they wouldn't be doing a press conference at 6am.
"Brexit resurrects the English cult of heroic failure"
You have been saying "the right own this now" etc etc and constantly framing the result as being down to rich, right wing people, despite all the evidence being against you. As we know, if only the rich voted, we would have Remained, and if only the poor voted, we would have left.
https://twitter.com/easypoliticsuk/status/823841612648378368
IDS: Stop trying to tell Parliament what to do.
twitter.com/easypoliticsuk…