MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
I'm sure had Ukip and the tories been in coalition, and Remain won the referendum, these people would have been fine with PM Boris and Deputy Farage saying 'it was only advisory' & invoking article 50
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
4) Following the Mexico wall visit debacle, Trump needs to show he can make a deal. He needs to show this. Likewise May needs a trade deal too, or at least much 'motion towards'. It is in neither of their interests for this relationship not to be able to work together.
But he is likely to knacker it with torture or Putin
You guys think that Trump is playing to the usual political rules. Well he aint! He is playing by business rules- his own business rules, and until we can read them he will be ahead of the game. Whatever that is.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
My OED dictionary states that advisory is not the same as mandatory. I assume you are using one based on "alternative facts" such as the need to hold the Conservative party together rather than to benefit our nations as a whole.
Sukumvit, never been there, but I came across the name years ago in "Deathtrap Dungeon", one of the pioneer Fighting Fantasy gamebooks in the early 80s. Apparently, the authors Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone had been to the real Sukhumvit and named the owner of Deathtrap Dungeon after it (minus the "h").
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
Legally advisory, definitely not politically.
The voters will decide that. If it were me, I would vote to trigger Article 50; but those who don't are not being hypocrites in my view. They might be being stupid, but that is something else entirely.
Miss B, if the Commons voted down Article 50 and we stayed in (which would be legal), the bitterness and polarisation in politics would be more akin to the Peloponnesian War than what we have today.
Asking people their opinion, failing to persuade them, then ignoring their response is a recipe for serious discontent.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
The same point can be made about the government not involving the devolved assemblies/Parliaments. It may not be legally obliged to but it may well be breaking all manner of political conventions in not doing so.
Course you can. All it takes is to look at the world in a slightly different way to you.
(FWIW I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't share their view, but I can accept a case than MP can reject or amend this bill having previous backed the referendum. The best argument IMO is that things have materially changed since June.)
Yes, if you are looking for an excuse, then 'material change' would be the least implausible. But none of the refuseniks seem to be running that one.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That was not put to the people in any shape or form and if those comments were put to a poll today I would expect 100% rejection of your comments by those who voted on either side of the debate
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Course you can. All it takes is to look at the world in a slightly different way to you.
(FWIW I am playing devil's advocate here. I don't share their view, but I can accept a case than MP can reject or amend this bill having previous backed the referendum. The best argument IMO is that things have materially changed since June.)
Yes, if you are looking for an excuse, then 'material change' would be the least implausible. But none of the refuseniks seem to be running that one.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That was not put to the people in any shape or form and if those comments were put to a poll today I would expect 100% rejection of your comments by those who voted on either side of the debate
Sukumvit, never been there, but I came across the name years ago in "Deathtrap Dungeon", one of the pioneer Fighting Fantasy gamebooks in the early 80s. Apparently, the authors Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone had been to the real Sukhumvit and named the owner of Deathtrap Dungeon after it (minus the "h").
Sukumvit Charavask
Roll a dice. If you get a 6 move to page 89 and trigger article 50.
MPs voted for an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is entirely consistent to ask for advice, but then not to take it. It may not be wise, but that is entirely different. Voters will decide.
That's dancing on the head of a pin. There was absolutely no suggestion whatsoever that the referendum was advisory in that sense, i.e. that the government and/or parliament felt free to ignore the result. Quite the opposite, in fact.
My OED dictionary states that advisory is not the same as mandatory. I assume you are using one based on "alternative facts" such as the need to hold the Conservative party together rather than to benefit our nations as a whole.
The Conservative Party played no part in the referendum.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
The MPs are not bound by what the campaigns didn't say. The hypocrisy would be to have said loudly and clearly I will respect the result of the referendum and vote to implement it, and then not to do so. Absent that, we are talking poor judgement rather than venality.
If you're an MP. If you respect the will of the people. Then you will vote for the A50 bill.
If not, then we know how little respect for democracy you have.
48% voted to stay. So 48% of MPs should vote against triggering, right?
Nope. MPS are elected to represent their constituents. If you are going to follow that principle then they should vote as their constituencies did, not as the country as a whole did.
Mr. Meeks, quite. The Scottish Parliament should have the same weight in the EU negotiations/strategy as the English Parliament.
But since the English have only bleated about having a parliament rather than lifting an arthritic finger to make it happen, everyone else in this 'partnership of equals' has to live with their sluggardly inaction?
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
The MPs are not bound by what the campaigns didn't say. The hypocrisy would be to have said loudly and clearly I will respect the result of the referendum and vote to implement it, and then not to do so. Absent that, we are talking poor judgement rather than venality.
No wonder with attitudes like yours there is a backlash going on by ordinary voters.
Mr. Divvie, nobody forced Labour to devolve power. Nor to do so in such a cack-handed, narrow-minded, short-sighted, stupid way (ie designed to give them little Celtic fiefdoms but serving to ultimately smash Scottish Labour to smithereens).
As for lifting a finger, it wasn't for Scotland that you got your Parliament. It was for Labour. Unfortunately for the reds, Blair was a moron.
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
I don't recall seeing that on the ballot
Leaving the EU is. Staying in the single market was not a decision made by the referendum. But we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
The MPs are not bound by what the campaigns didn't say. The hypocrisy would be to have said loudly and clearly I will respect the result of the referendum and vote to implement it, and then not to do so. Absent that, we are talking poor judgement rather than venality.
Legally, that is true. Constitutionally, it's more debatable and depends on the extent to which MPs or parliament as a whole is bound to respect the view of the electorate in a question that was referred by them to it. Politically, an individual MP might get away with voting against it, even in a Leave constituency (by 2020, a lot of water will have flowed under the bridge); were parliament as a whole to vote down withdrawal, there'd be (rightly) an almighty backlash.
As an aside, the government might have had an easier ride on this legislation had it included an extra clause making notification dependent on a vote in the Commons. As it is, at the moment, the government cannot withdraw from the EU at all; once the bill is passed, the government can withdraw at will. Separating the granting of the power to withdraw from the exercising of that power might have some merit.
Sukumvit, never been there, but I came across the name years ago in "Deathtrap Dungeon", one of the pioneer Fighting Fantasy gamebooks in the early 80s. Apparently, the authors Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone had been to the real Sukhumvit and named the owner of Deathtrap Dungeon after it (minus the "h").
Sukumvit Charavask
Roll a dice. If you get a 6 move to page 89 and trigger article 50.
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
I don't recall seeing that on the ballot
Leaving the EU is. Staying in the single market was not a decision made by the referendum. But we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
The EU has already made clear you can't "leave the EU" and "stay in the single market".
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
I don't recall seeing that on the ballot
Leaving the EU is. Staying in the single market was not a decision made by the referendum. But we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
The EU has already made clear you can't "leave the EU" and "stay in the single market".
Clearly not true legally since Norway is outside the EU but in the single market. As such it is only a political impediment not a legal one.
Sukumvit, never been there, but I came across the name years ago in "Deathtrap Dungeon", one of the pioneer Fighting Fantasy gamebooks in the early 80s. Apparently, the authors Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone had been to the real Sukhumvit and named the owner of Deathtrap Dungeon after it (minus the "h").
Sukumvit Charavask
Roll a dice. If you get a 6 move to page 89 and trigger article 50.
Isn't 'dice' plural?
Your hand hovers nervously above your ballot paper. If you want to LEAVE the EU, turn to Article 50. If you would rather REMAIN in the EU, turn to the EU 27. If you would rather Test your Luck, roll two dice. If the total is lower than or equal to your current Luck score, you are Lucky, and you can CHOOSE one of the above two options. If you are Unlucky, you have to spoil your ballot. You have failed in your mission!
Mr. Divvie, nobody forced Labour to devolve power. Nor to do so in such a cack-handed, narrow-minded, short-sighted, stupid way (ie designed to give them little Celtic fiefdoms but serving to ultimately smash Scottish Labour to smithereens).
As for lifting a finger, it wasn't for Scotland that you got your Parliament. It was for Labour. Unfortunately for the reds, Blair was a moron.
No one forced Labour to devolve power, apart from Scottish home rule being an element in their make up since their founding, and the fact that it was clearly spelled out in Labour's '97 manifesto which was voted for by the English electorate in a landslide. Sounds a bit like you're saying the voters were too stupid to know for what they were voting; how very metropolitan elite of you.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Mr. Divvie, Labour had been in power a lot since its founding and never previously devolved power. Also, by the same token, the EU referendum was in the Conservative manifesto and the British people voted for that.
The difference, of course, is that leaving or remaining is for the whole UK, rather than giving more power, or less, to particular parts of the country based on their probability of voting Labour.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Someone said to the lemmings lets all run this way; other said no, there’s a cliff face there. However, the lemmings were persauded that there was good food ‘that’ way so they ran. Now those who saw the dangers are trying to prevent the rest from falling over that cliff. How is that wrong?
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
Strictly and constitutionally, MPs as our elected representatives can decide what they want and are answerable to the voters for that decision at the next election. In practice the body of MPs will need to respect the referendum result by agreeing to the trigger of Article 50, even if some individuals abstain or vote against. All other decisions, amendments etc, whether to leave the SM/CU etc, are justified on their own merits.
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
I don't recall seeing that on the ballot
Leaving the EU is. Staying in the single market was not a decision made by the referendum. But we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
The EU has already made clear you can't "leave the EU" and "stay in the single market".
Clearly not true legally since Norway is outside the EU but in the single market. As such it is only a political impediment not a legal one.
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
I don't recall seeing that on the ballot
Leaving the EU is. Staying in the single market was not a decision made by the referendum. But we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
The EU has already made clear you can't "leave the EU" and "stay in the single market".
Clearly not true legally since Norway is outside the EU but in the single market. As such it is only a political impediment not a legal one.
There was a large turn-out because the electorate believed the vote mattered.
If MPs were now to say "Oh, that? Naw, it was just an opinion poll. You didn't really think we'd give you a say, did you?" They'd deserve all they'll get.
I understand fanatics trying to wish the result away - especially when they're used to getting their own way.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Someone said to the lemmings lets all run this way; other said no, there’s a cliff face there. However, the lemmings were persauded that there was good food ‘that’ way so they ran. Now those who saw the dangers are trying to prevent the rest from falling over that cliff. How is that wrong?
As I said, trying to be a smart arse about these things rather than accepting the obvious common sense verdict leads to bad consequences
After defrosting and cleaning the fridge/freezer, always ensure you slide the glass shelves in fully before putting food back in. Failure to do so can end in lots of spoilt food and cracked glass.
On the plus side, at least Mrs J'll never ask me to do it again.
(As an aside, why do some fridges, such as mine, have a shelf that is split in two (*)? What purpose does it serve?)
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
Strictly and constitutionally, MPs as our elected representatives can decide what they want and are answerable to the voters for that decision at the next election. In practice the body of MPs will need to respect the referendum result by agreeing to the trigger of Article 50, even if some individuals abstain or vote against. All other decisions, amendments etc, whether to leave the SM/CU etc, are justified on their own merits.
A50 has to be served by the end of March no matter what. Thereafter 2 years of negotiation will take place and then the type of deal will be clearer and the MP's should have their say
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
That is absolutely right.
Every MP (imo) should vote through A50. However, it is legitimate for MPs to put forward amendments to subsequent bills given that, as we are told repeatedly, there is no template for what flavour or Brexit we are going to get.
@AlastairMeeks will back me up... my football team are not interested in politics and have never discussed it on our what's app group except on referendum day. Pretty much white van men. When the Supreme Court decision was announced they were enraged and went on about it all morning
(I sent Alastair the screenshot, he's not in the team)
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Yes, the government said it was a once in a lifetime decision. So it would be absolutely wrong for the government to ignore the voters' response. I could not agree more. That answers the point you made about PM Boris and Deputy PM Farage, of course. But why should Labour MPs (or those of any other opposition party) be bound by what a Tory government said?
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
Strictly and constitutionally, MPs as our elected representatives can decide what they want and are answerable to the voters for that decision at the next election. In practice the body of MPs will need to respect the referendum result by agreeing to the trigger of Article 50, even if some individuals abstain or vote against. All other decisions, amendments etc, whether to leave the SM/CU etc, are justified on their own merits.
A50 has to be served by the end of March no matter what. Thereafter 2 years of negotiation will take place and then the type of deal will be clearer and the MP's should have their say
Why must A50 be served by the end of March no matter what?
Mr. Divvie, Labour had been in power a lot since its founding and never previously devolved power. Also, by the same token, the EU referendum was in the Conservative manifesto and the British people voted for that.
The difference, of course, is that leaving or remaining is for the whole UK, rather than giving more power, or less, to particular parts of the country based on their probability of voting Labour.
I think it's quite a long time since the 'British' people voted for a Conservative manifesto, a much more pressing reason for the desire for Scottish devolution than any perceived electoral advantage for Labour.
If only the Tories hadn't broken promises on, backtracked over and obstructed devolution, they might have a shred of credibility in the matter.
@AlastairMeeks will back me up... my football team are not interested in politics and have never discussed it on our what's app group except on referendum day. Pretty much white van men. When the Supreme Court decision was announced they were enraged and went on about it all morning
(I sent Alastair the screenshot, he's not in the team)
I would say that my footballing days are behind me, but they were never in front of me.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
The MPs are not bound by what the campaigns didn't say. The hypocrisy would be to have said loudly and clearly I will respect the result of the referendum and vote to implement it, and then not to do so. Absent that, we are talking poor judgement rather than venality.
No wonder with attitudes like yours there is a backlash going on by ordinary voters.
Can you explain to me - an ordinary voter - what my attitude is?
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
That is absolutely right.
Every MP (imo) should vote through A50. However, it is legitimate for MPs to put forward amendments to subsequent bills given that, as we are told repeatedly, there is no template for what flavour or Brexit we are going to get.
Well what are reversible are the deals that TM the PM makes. If enough people disagree with them they can vote in a different govt next time who promise to change them. This is just a deal with another country now, we don't have to have parliament vote on it
An individual MP like Cambridge's Daniel Zeichner (*), who was a firm remainer, and in a strong remain area, should be able to vote in line with his conscience and the way his own constituents voted.
IMO this is the sort of issue where whipping should not be allowed. It is too important to be sullied by party politics. Then again, I'm hardly a big fan of whipping.
Even if it was a free vote, I've no doubt that it would get through the Commons. If there is any real trouble, it will be in the Lords.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
Strictly and constitutionally, MPs as our elected representatives can decide what they want and are answerable to the voters for that decision at the next election. In practice the body of MPs will need to respect the referendum result by agreeing to the trigger of Article 50, even if some individuals abstain or vote against. All other decisions, amendments etc, whether to leave the SM/CU etc, are justified on their own merits.
Actually I think they would have to justify WHY they took the decision not to trigger Article 50. For example that circumstances had changed so drastically the premise of the referendum no longer applies. For clarity, I don't think that's a convincing argument in the present circumstances, but I could conceive other circumstances where it might be.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Yes, the government said it was a once in a lifetime decision. So it would be absolutely wrong for the government to ignore the voters' response. I could not agree more. That answers the point you made about PM Boris and Deputy PM Farage, of course. But why should Labour MPs (or those of any other opposition party) be bound by what a Tory government said?
Because they voted for the referendum I'd say. Do you honestly think any MP, when the result was announced, thought 'hang on this IS only advisory isn't it? Whaaat?? We actually have to leave? I didn't know that!'
It's just filibuster. It's boring and sad. They could've killed UKIP forever now they've given them a point again
Sukumvit, never been there, but I came across the name years ago in "Deathtrap Dungeon", one of the pioneer Fighting Fantasy gamebooks in the early 80s. Apparently, the authors Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone had been to the real Sukhumvit and named the owner of Deathtrap Dungeon after it (minus the "h").
Sukumvit Charavask
Roll a dice. If you get a 6 move to page 89 and trigger article 50.
Isn't 'dice' plural?
Your hand hovers nervously above your ballot paper. If you want to LEAVE the EU, turn to Article 50. If you would rather REMAIN in the EU, turn to the EU 27. If you would rather Test your Luck, roll two dice. If the total is lower than or equal to your current Luck score, you are Lucky, and you can CHOOSE one of the above two options. If you are Unlucky, you have to spoil your ballot. You have failed in your mission!
NB - don't forget to deduct one from your luck score for the next time. (Takes me back many a decade - Warlock of firetop Mountain et al)
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Yes, the government said it was a once in a lifetime decision. So it would be absolutely wrong for the government to ignore the voters' response. I could not agree more. That answers the point you made about PM Boris and Deputy PM Farage, of course. But why should Labour MPs (or those of any other opposition party) be bound by what a Tory government said?
No - it was the remain cross party campaign said it was a once in a lifetime decision and David Cameron said he would serve A50 straight away if the campaign lost
The leave campaign was also cross party so the government is implementing the result of a referendum agreed to held by all parties
I had thought that Europe would split one of the parties, but Labour seems to want to break up faster than The Tories.
Am wondering if Corbyn will be hit by another weekend of rolling resignations, each timed for a different point in the rolling news cycle.
Presumably not. That would require co-ordination, not the sort of chaotic disintegration that appears to be in progress.
These resignations aren't part of a rebellion. They're just some of the remaining, mostly obscure, MPs still willing to serve under Corbyn defying him in order to shore up their Remain-backing seats against Lib Dem challenge. All set against the backdrop of the despair and resignation of those who have already long-since departed for the backbenches. Or positions as metro-mayors, or museum directors.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
Strictly and constitutionally, MPs as our elected representatives can decide what they want and are answerable to the voters for that decision at the next election. In practice the body of MPs will need to respect the referendum result by agreeing to the trigger of Article 50, even if some individuals abstain or vote against. All other decisions, amendments etc, whether to leave the SM/CU etc, are justified on their own merits.
A50 has to be served by the end of March no matter what. Thereafter 2 years of negotiation will take place and then the type of deal will be clearer and the MP's should have their say
Why must A50 be served by the end of March no matter what?
To ensure the conclusion by the end of March 2019 just before campaigns for elections to the European Parliament begin
"Can you explain to me - an ordinary voter - what my attitude is?"
I'll try. You're normally a sensible adult, but when it comes to the EU, you revert to childhood. A six-year-old whose chocolate lolly has been taken away. "Wah, wah, wah," is the result.
My advice (now that smacking is no longer allowed)? Get you home and let you have a good sleep.
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
The MPs are not bound by what the campaigns didn't say. The hypocrisy would be to have said loudly and clearly I will respect the result of the referendum and vote to implement it, and then not to do so. Absent that, we are talking poor judgement rather than venality.
No wonder with attitudes like yours there is a backlash going on by ordinary voters.
Can you explain to me - an ordinary voter - what my attitude is?
You are not an ordinary voter by any stretch of the imagination
The Supreme Court was absolutely clear about it: the referendum was advisory. There is no hypocrisy in asking for advice and not taking it. Voters will decide whether MPs who act in that way deserve to be re-elected or not.
The Supreme Court does not make judgements on the degree of hypocrisy of politicians, it makes judgements on the precise legal position, which has never been in dispute on this particular point.
No - thank God. That is down to us. I don't see these MPs as hypocrites, I respect their views - though I disagree with them. I think it is perfectly consistent to vote in favour of an advisory referendum and then to vote against implementing the result.
Only if the campaign said that the poll was advisory and that the politicians could vote down the result.
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
Strictly and constitutionally, MPs as our elected representatives can decide what they want and are answerable to the voters for that decision at the next election. In practice the body of MPs will need to respect the referendum result by agreeing to the trigger of Article 50, even if some individuals abstain or vote against. All other decisions, amendments etc, whether to leave the SM/CU etc, are justified on their own merits.
A50 has to be served by the end of March no matter what. Thereafter 2 years of negotiation will take place and then the type of deal will be clearer and the MP's should have their say
It doesn't have to be served by the end of March. On the practical (but not constitutional) level, it's inadvisable to be seen to be obstructing Brexit. If they can justify a delay (to get ducks in a row, to give the other side a bit more time etc), that's fine.
@AlastairMeeks will back me up... my football team are not interested in politics and have never discussed it on our what's app group except on referendum day. Pretty much white van men. When the Supreme Court decision was announced they were enraged and went on about it all morning
(I sent Alastair the screenshot, he's not in the team)
I would say that my footballing days are behind me, but they were never in front of me.
(but I confirm what you say)
Actually it was that whatsapp thread that made me back Ukip at 2.6 to reverse my original position. I thought if these boys are that annoyed about it in a comparable Brexit area to Stoke, it must be 50/50
Mr. Divvie, it's about a year and a half since the British people voted for a Conservative manifesto.
And it's over 60 years since the Scottish people voted for a Conservative manifesto. Please feel free to carry on into eternity trying to square that circle while whinnying about an English parliament.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
That is absolutely right.
Every MP (imo) should vote through A50. However, it is legitimate for MPs to put forward amendments to subsequent bills given that, as we are told repeatedly, there is no template for what flavour or Brexit we are going to get.
Well what are reversible are the deals that TM the PM makes. If enough people disagree with them they can vote in a different govt next time who promise to change them. This is just a deal with another country now, we don't have to have parliament vote on it
Yes that's true. I have no doubt that A50 will be voted through. But it's also legitimate to try to shape the nature of those deals now. And that will emerge over the next two years. Theresa has said there will be a vote on the final deal (or we will end up with "no deal"). So it will be interesting to see how different the final deal is from the one proposed initially by the government.
There seems little room for a more nuanced view on A50 - yes, there was a vote to LEAVE and A50 is part of it.
However, simply saying "we must invoke A50 and then trust Theresa" is fine if you agree to the second part of that. I don't.
The outcome of the negotiation will be a significant document as it will set out not only Britain's relationship with the EU going forward but will be part of the big national debate we haven't yet had - the question of our own place in the world and what kind of country we want to be in the 2020s and beyond.
It's right and proper the outcome of the A50 negotiations should be subject to full public and Parliamentary scrutiny and to me that includes a referendum. Would May allow a free vote on the outcome of her Government's negotiations ? I don't believe so if there was a prospect of defeat.
Arguing for A50 but with the amendment that there has to be a referendum on the resulting treaty is reasonable as far as I'm concerned but I'm well aware that's a minority view.
If you're an MP. If you respect the will of the people. Then you will vote for the A50 bill.
If not, then we know how little respect for democracy you have.
48% voted to stay. So 48% of MPs should vote against triggering, right?
MPs represent constituencies. There is a reasonable argument to say they should vote the way their constituents voted as that is accurately representing them.
"Can you explain to me - an ordinary voter - what my attitude is?"
I'll try. You're normally a sensible adult, but when it comes to the EU, you revert to childhood. A six-year-old whose chocolate lolly has been taken away. "Wah, wah, wah," is the result.
My advice (now that smacking is no longer allowed)? Get you home and let you have a good sleep.
Other opinions are, of course, available.
Got it - so a six-year-old would say: "I think MPs voting against triggering A50 are making a mistake, but I do not think they are hypocrites." You must know some pretty smart six-year-olds.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Yes, the government said it was a once in a lifetime decision. So it would be absolutely wrong for the government to ignore the voters' response. I could not agree more. That answers the point you made about PM Boris and Deputy PM Farage, of course. But why should Labour MPs (or those of any other opposition party) be bound by what a Tory government said?
No - it was the remain cross party campaign said it was a once in a lifetime decision and David Cameron said he would serve A50 straight away if the campaign lost
The leave campaign was also cross party so the government is implementing the result of a referendum agreed to held by all parties
With respect you do get some daft ideas
It was a campaign led by the Tory PM and the Tory Chancellor, who also said that they would trigger A50 the day after the referendum.
we leave the finer details to our representives in parliament.
So you respect the right of individual MPs to vote their conscience. That's progress...
If we could allow common sense to invade this debate, rather than borderline autistic 'Mr Logic' from Viz style pretend ignorance, yes of course MPs can just vote it down if they want if it was advisory.
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
Yes, the government said it was a once in a lifetime decision. So it would be absolutely wrong for the government to ignore the voters' response. I could not agree more. That answers the point you made about PM Boris and Deputy PM Farage, of course. But why should Labour MPs (or those of any other opposition party) be bound by what a Tory government said?
Because they voted for the referendum I'd say. Do you honestly think any MP, when the result was announced, thought 'hang on this IS only advisory isn't it? Whaaat?? We actually have to leave? I didn't know that!'
It's just filibuster. It's boring and sad. They could've killed UKIP forever now they've given them a point again
Labour MPs do not have to own up to this stupid referendum in any shape or form. The referendum was promised only to keep the Tories not from rebelling.
Comments
Really - does he want to win Stoke
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-38773428
Auction of photographs of LL G with Jennifer Stevenson.
He is playing by business rules- his own business rules, and until we can read them he will be ahead of the game. Whatever that is.
Sukumvit Charavask
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2016/06/06/some-mps-are-set-to-remind-the-electorate-that-referendums-are-advisory-and-not-binding-on-parliament/
His privatizing the NHS stuff is toxic though.
Miss B, if the Commons voted down Article 50 and we stayed in (which would be legal), the bitterness and polarisation in politics would be more akin to the Peloponnesian War than what we have today.
Asking people their opinion, failing to persuade them, then ignoring their response is a recipe for serious discontent.
Things have come to a pretty pass when the SNP can claim the moral high ground!!!
"This is a daft idea. The referendum will give a massive mandate to whoever wins. It should be respected."
He's offering 66/1
This did not happen so the idea that politicians can fiddle the result to suit their own vested interests is just why there is so much anger against the idea that the result will not be respected
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1
was just a campaign tactic and not a pledge that will ever need to be honoured, while "leaving the single market" is now the inviolable "will of the British people" and anyone who disagrees is a traitor...
I don't recall seeing that on the ballot
As for lifting a finger, it wasn't for Scotland that you got your Parliament. It was for Labour. Unfortunately for the reds, Blair was a moron.
As an aside, the government might have had an easier ride on this legislation had it included an extra clause making notification dependent on a vote in the Commons. As it is, at the moment, the government cannot withdraw from the EU at all; once the bill is passed, the government can withdraw at will. Separating the granting of the power to withdraw from the exercising of that power might have some merit.
https://twitter.com/angusmacneilsnp/status/824994266074210305
The fact that the whole country were told it was a once in a lifetime decision that government had placed in their hands IS relevant though, so relevant in fact as to override the bad loser 'advisory' nonsense. It really is this kind of head in the clouds smart arse attitude that leads to Trump, when will supposedly clever people wise up?
http://viz.co.uk/category/cartoons/strip-cartoons/mr-logic/
The difference, of course, is that leaving or remaining is for the whole UK, rather than giving more power, or less, to particular parts of the country based on their probability of voting Labour.
Now those who saw the dangers are trying to prevent the rest from falling over that cliff.
How is that wrong?
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/13/its-hard-brexit-or-no-brexit-at-all-says-eu-council-president
If MPs were now to say "Oh, that? Naw, it was just an opinion poll. You didn't really think we'd give you a say, did you?" They'd deserve all they'll get.
I understand fanatics trying to wish the result away - especially when they're used to getting their own way.
I blame the parents.
After defrosting and cleaning the fridge/freezer, always ensure you slide the glass shelves in fully before putting food back in. Failure to do so can end in lots of spoilt food and cracked glass.
On the plus side, at least Mrs J'll never ask me to do it again.
(As an aside, why do some fridges, such as mine, have a shelf that is split in two (*)? What purpose does it serve?)
(*) Well, know more like ten.
Every MP (imo) should vote through A50. However, it is legitimate for MPs to put forward amendments to subsequent bills given that, as we are told repeatedly, there is no template for what flavour or Brexit we are going to get.
(I sent Alastair the screenshot, he's not in the team)
If only the Tories hadn't broken promises on, backtracked over and obstructed devolution, they might have a shred of credibility in the matter.
(but I confirm what you say)
Am wondering if Corbyn will be hit by another weekend of rolling resignations, each timed for a different point in the rolling news cycle.
If a mp considers that authorising the PM to give a notice under A50 is not in the best interests of the country, they should vote against.
Such a vote may have consequences at the next general election, but should that be a defining reason?
IMO this is the sort of issue where whipping should not be allowed. It is too important to be sullied by party politics. Then again, I'm hardly a big fan of whipping.
Even if it was a free vote, I've no doubt that it would get through the Commons. If there is any real trouble, it will be in the Lords.
(*) I'm not sure how Heidi Allen's going to vote.
It's just filibuster. It's boring and sad. They could've killed UKIP forever now they've given them a point again
The leave campaign was also cross party so the government is implementing the result of a referendum agreed to held by all parties
With respect you do get some daft ideas
Both my threads have been written in advance for Sunday, please Jez/Labour, give a boy a break.
June the 26th 2016 is seared into my mind.
These resignations aren't part of a rebellion. They're just some of the remaining, mostly obscure, MPs still willing to serve under Corbyn defying him in order to shore up their Remain-backing seats against Lib Dem challenge. All set against the backdrop of the despair and resignation of those who have already long-since departed for the backbenches. Or positions as metro-mayors, or museum directors.
"Can you explain to me - an ordinary voter - what my attitude is?"
I'll try. You're normally a sensible adult, but when it comes to the EU, you revert to childhood. A six-year-old whose chocolate lolly has been taken away. "Wah, wah, wah," is the result.
My advice (now that smacking is no longer allowed)? Get you home and let you have a good sleep.
Other opinions are, of course, available.
That is me when the cold callers phone offering to help me for the PPI/accident I had.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-01/27/c_136016634.htm
There seems little room for a more nuanced view on A50 - yes, there was a vote to LEAVE and A50 is part of it.
However, simply saying "we must invoke A50 and then trust Theresa" is fine if you agree to the second part of that. I don't.
The outcome of the negotiation will be a significant document as it will set out not only Britain's relationship with the EU going forward but will be part of the big national debate we haven't yet had - the question of our own place in the world and what kind of country we want to be in the 2020s and beyond.
It's right and proper the outcome of the A50 negotiations should be subject to full public and Parliamentary scrutiny and to me that includes a referendum. Would May allow a free vote on the outcome of her Government's negotiations ? I don't believe so if there was a prospect of defeat.
Arguing for A50 but with the amendment that there has to be a referendum on the resulting treaty is reasonable as far as I'm concerned but I'm well aware that's a minority view.