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.
The referendum was not binding. If it was , it would have been written into the Act which created it, as the Scottish referendum did.
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.
I'd be happy for such a referenedum - as long as the choice being offered is: 1. Go with Mrs May's negotiation agreement with the EU; or 2. Hardest Brexit of all, WTO rules, no handshake
I suspect what you intend is: 1. leave on the terms agreed by Mrs May with the EU; or 2. Stay in
Please tell me I'm wrong and just being cynical about 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?
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.
This part I am not sure is legally watertight. Why "this" final deal vs. No deal ? Who decided that ? Is it written anywhere ?
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.
This part I am not sure is legally watertight. Why "this" final deal vs. No deal ? Who decided that ? Is it written anywhere ?
Well also, I can see the logic, while not seeking not to agree to A50 triggering, if this is the only opportunity to shape the flavour of Brexit, that it is right now that people should submit their bids. ie single market membership, etc, etc.
Whats the difference between the third and second ?
Lewis looks like he's playing a cute game with A50 - can be dangerous.
Second reading is before amendments have been finalised, so you're saying you agree with the broad principle but it may need changing with the amendments.
Third reading is the final version. You're saying you're happy for this to be the law without further amendment.
There can be further amendments from the Lords after the Commons passes third reading but that's another story.
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?
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.
This part I am not sure is legally watertight. Why "this" final deal vs. No deal ? Who decided that ? Is it written anywhere ?
Back to Trump and May. Unusually, the US side might need the UK more than the other way round. Trump has managed to piss off everyone except the Israelis, Russians and Brits. So we may be useful as necessary partners for Trump to actually do a deal with. The somewhat accepted wisdom is that an EU-less Britain is desperate for a deal with America to maintain the pretence that breaking your main international relationship is Britain embracing the world. But is it? Could May gain more by being a little coy?
Whats the difference between the third and second ?
Lewis looks like he's playing a cute game with A50 - can be dangerous.
Not sure of the Parliamentary process, but I think the second reading is when amendments get voted on. If (when) the Labour ones are not accepted and the final bill is presented for a third reading I guess the idea is that there is no obligation to vote for it anymore as the safeguards that Labour (Lewis) wants have not ben included. It may be politically astute if Brexit goes wrong - we tried to warn the Tories, but they would not listen.
Whats the difference between the third and second ?
Lewis looks like he's playing a cute game with A50 - can be dangerous.
I've always liked Clive Lewis ever since this
He responded by referencing the Multiverse theory – which suggests there’s an infinite number of parallel universes which cover every single possible eventuality.
He said: “I’m more worried about complacency [than the Greens]… I mean, in the multiverse there’s still three universes in a hundred where there’s a Green MP in Norwich, so anything could happen.
“I could be caught with my pants down behind a goat with Ed Miliband at the other end… well, hopefully that won’t happen.”
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.
This part I am not sure is legally watertight. Why "this" final deal vs. No deal ? Who decided that ? Is it written anywhere ?
Gordon Brown decided that when he ratified the Lisbon Treaty against the Conservatives wishes which authorised the creation of Article 50 and set that as the method by which we leave. Until then we would have to have left by negotiating our withdrawal and repealing the 1972 Act without any formal withdrawal mechanism.
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.
So no labour MP's actively campaigned to leave
Seems though it is going to finish labour while the conservatives without Ken, bless him, are united
I'd be happy for such a referenedum - as long as the choice being offered is: 1. Go with Mrs May's negotiation agreement with the EU; or 2. Hardest Brexit of all, WTO rules, no handshake
I suspect what you intend is: 1. leave on the terms agreed by Mrs May with the EU; or 2. Stay in
Please tell me I'm wrong and just being cynical about you.
No, I voted to LEAVE and part of me says a bad deal would be worse than no deal at all.
I agree we need to know the consequences of rejecting the agreed treaty. One possibility is May resigns and calls a General Election (but Cameron didn't so why should she ?).
Another is a new round of negotiations - not catered for under the current A50 rules but as we all know in times of crisis rules can be bent a little or a lot.
Let me throw it back to you - would you accept any deal May offered rather than no deal ?
Back to Trump and May. Unusually, the US side might need the UK more than the other way round. Trump has managed to piss off everyone except the Israelis, Russians and Brits. So we may be useful as necessary partners for Trump to actually do a deal with. The somewhat accepted wisdom is that an EU-less Britain is desperate for a deal with America to maintain the pretence that breaking your main international relationship is Britain embracing the world. But is it? Could May gain more by being a little coy?
More precisely. May said that no deal with the EU was better than a bad deal. She didn't say that about the US. Perhaps she should. We actually don't need a deal with the US, but we do with the EU.
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.
MD you seem to forget Scotland is a country not a region, it is supposed to be a union of equals between England and Scotland, oh how we laugh at that up here as we get shafted.
Comments
So he'll be voting against A50 then.
1. Go with Mrs May's negotiation agreement with the EU; or
2. Hardest Brexit of all, WTO rules, no handshake
I suspect what you intend is:
1. leave on the terms agreed by Mrs May with the EU; or
2. Stay in
Please tell me I'm wrong and just being cynical about you.
Mr. P, a French presidential candidate, being rude about the UK? Sacre bleu!
Lewis looks like he's playing a cute game with A50 - can be dangerous.
Third reading is the final version. You're saying you're happy for this to be the law without further amendment.
There can be further amendments from the Lords after the Commons passes third reading but that's another story.
Yes, in A50 itself.
You're not a smart six-year-old, you're a smart adult ... as long as no one mentions Brexit. I did just then, but I hoped I'd got away with it.
And he was quite right - though it would have left constitutional law somewhat fuzzier than it is today...
"Please tell me I'm wrong and just being cynical about you."
I've been surprised at just how cynical those voters are.
He responded by referencing the Multiverse theory – which suggests there’s an infinite number of parallel universes which cover every single possible eventuality.
He said: “I’m more worried about complacency [than the Greens]… I mean, in the multiverse there’s still three universes in a hundred where there’s a Green MP in Norwich, so anything could happen.
“I could be caught with my pants down behind a goat with Ed Miliband at the other end… well, hopefully that won’t happen.”
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/04/17/labour-candidate-apologises-for-joking-about-threesome-with-ed-miliband-and-a-goat/
Ironic isn't it?
Seems though it is going to finish labour while the conservatives without Ken, bless him, are united
NEW THREAD
I agree we need to know the consequences of rejecting the agreed treaty. One possibility is May resigns and calls a General Election (but Cameron didn't so why should she ?).
Another is a new round of negotiations - not catered for under the current A50 rules but as we all know in times of crisis rules can be bent a little or a lot.
Let me throw it back to you - would you accept any deal May offered rather than no deal ?