Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Problem is, there are many interpretations of what the people's decision does and doesn't mean. Hence I am keen for my elected representatives to cut through the more suicidal tendencies of those who have thought about nothing else for 40 years.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
Referendum results that have been overturned:
* renaming Leningrad as St Petersburg (the population voted against) * an economic reform package in Poland (early 1990s; can't recall the details) * the change to driving on the right in Sweden
The third is my favourite. What you have to know is that cars in Sweden had the driver's seat on the left and they were driven on the left. There was a referendum on whether the country should switch to driving on the right. And the people voted against. They wanted to stay as they were, so they could keep a close eye on the kerb as they drove along! The government said don't be so silly - and introduced the change regardless. Rightly so.
Mayoral elections are taking place this May in Manchester and Birmingham. The idea was rejected in both places in referendums in 2012. But Parliament has decided to overrule the people on this without consulting them on their revised proposals.
There is no principle that referendum results are automatically to be honoured by Parliament.
Any remainer who would not have preferred the counterfactual of a Miliband government to the present situation is clearly 'intensely relaxed' regarding Brexit.
That's simplistic. A Miliband government would have likely engaged in the EU with the intent of Blair but without the skill. The blowback from the media and public after making goodwill gestures and signing up to unwanted cooperation while getting little to nothing in return would have been significant. Miliband himself would likely have had an extremely poor approval rating (he did as LotO, which is a much easier job, PR-wise, than PM), and Labour would have leaked more votes to the still-Farage-led UKIP.
Meanwhile, the Tories would have had a leadership contest to replace Cameron, with a good chance of Brexit Boris winning.
Quite how it all would have played out is anyone's guess but it's difficult to see that there wouldn't have been a reckoning towards the back-end of this decade or the beginning of the next one, with Leave in a much stronger position than it was in 2016.
Which is to say that given what we know now, it's highly likely that Brexit would have happened one way or another, unless someone had made a convincing positive case for the EU - and the EU had engaged in enabling a convincing positive case to be made.
I think that Brexit became inevitable once we crashed out of the ERM. It was clear then that we would never be at the heart of an EU that was integrating.
the people didn't vote for the process to be blocked
The process is not being blocked, it is being defined.
Isn't giving Parliament a genuine say meant to be "taking back control?"
Parliament referred this decision to the people , now they are trying to ignore the people because they didn't like the answer and are now trying bring us by machievellian means back under the control of Undemocratic Brussels. Oh, and by the way the democtratically elected commons chamber rejected this amendment for a meaningful vote, its just the unelected,outmoded, antiquarian gentry in the Lords who aren't accountable to the people and certainly not a democratic chamber (109 LibDem Lords / 8 MP's??? for example not to mention the hereditary peers)
The LibDems got 8% of the vote in 2015 and just under 1.25% of the seats in the House of Commons.
last time i checked the people chose (via a democratic referendum) to stay with FPTP as the means for electing their MP's or do you want to ignore that referendum too? And BTW 8% of the Lords would give them 64 Lords not 109. And what are we doing with hereditary peers in the 21st century?
Voters rejected AV, it is true. My point was that referring to the LDs number of MPs as a reason for not taking any notice of them is not necessarily democratic given that the number of MPs does not reflect the support they had in the country at the last election.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Got it - you are opposed to Parliamentary democracy, then.
That said, the Brexit deal is not a trade deal. It is about removing rights from both UK and EU citizens.
For once, if possible, try not to come across as a pedantic smart alec.. I don't know if you realise but it is not that funny
I am not opposed to parliamentary democracy, but the fact is we elect governments to negotiate with other countries, not parliaments. We voted to Leave, and it is for the government of the time, now and in the future, to negotiate with foreign powers. So let them get on with it, and if its no good, the next lot can sort it out.
You must surely be asking yourself why, with some of the lunatics currently taking over the asylum.
If I can cope with IDS being party leader, I can cope with Mrs May being leader.
Those of us representing the libertarian, free trade, one nation conservatism are staying and fighting the good fight.
Plus George Osborne will need us when he becomes leader/PM in the next few years.
To quit now would be positively French.
You certainly don't represent either Libertarian nor free trade conservatism.
The party you were recently a member of opposed same sex marriage, whilst my then and current party leader backed it.
As for free trade is the best thing in the world, I endorse it whole heartedly.
Theresa May is a pretty centrist, standard, kind of Conservative. I don't understand your loathing for her.
And arguably on economic policy, more 'One Nation' than Cameron and Osborne. As a soggy (not quite dripping wet) Tory of yore - and Remainer to boot - I'm pretty comfortable with the general direction of policy, abeit I'd prefer more emphasis on free schools and academies than creating new grammar schools.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
Referendum results that have been overturned:
* renaming Leningrad as St Petersburg (the population voted against) * an economic reform package in Poland (early 1990s; can't recall the details) * the change to driving on the right in Sweden
The third is my favourite. What you have to know is that cars in Sweden had the driver's seat on the left and they were driven on the left. There was a referendum on whether the country should switch to driving on the right. And the people voted against. They wanted to stay as they were, so they could keep a close eye on the kerb as they drove along! The government said don't be so silly - and introduced the change regardless. Rightly so.
Mayoral elections are taking place this May in Manchester and Birmingham. The idea was rejected in both places in referendums in 2012. But Parliament has decided to overrule the people on this without consulting them on their revised proposals.
There is no principle that referendum results are automatically to be honoured by Parliament.
Marine Le Pen's promise to allow referendums when 500,000 people want one is one of the scariest things in her manifesto. Dupont-Aignan makes an identical promise. I am waiting for Mélenchon's manifesto to arrive in the post, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is advocating something very similar. The new populism advances, and it isn't pretty. There was a good reason that plebiscites were banned in West Germany.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
Democracy risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But influence.
Yes prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If people.
Got it - you are opposed to Parliamentary democracy, then.
That EU citizens.
For once, if possible, try not to come across as a pedantic smart alec.. I don't know if you realise but it is not that funny
I am not opposed to parliamentary democracy, but the fact is we elect governments to negotiate with other countries, not parliaments. We voted to Leave, and it is for the government of the time, now and in the future, to negotiate with foreign powers. So let them get on with it, and if its no good, the next lot can sort it out.
No, we don't elect governments. We elect MPs. The Queen appoints the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister selects who will serve in his or her government. It is the job of MPs to hold the government to account. That is how parliamentary democracy works.
Well, let's take a plausible scenario. The deal, reached after much agonising, involves Britain paying £23 billion and agreeing to take EU migrants for 10 years, with the right to refuse them benefits; in return, we have partially tariff-free access to the single market, with various complicatedrules to ensure that we're not a channel for other countries to avoid tariffs. The economy has turned down, people feel grumpy and dubious whether the package is really worthwhile.
Then the EU makes a surprise offer: if you really don't like the deal, we can freeze the whole process indefinitely ("stopping the clock" is a standard EU decision). We can talk about whether you can get better terms, or whether you stay on after all. Or you can have this rather crap package.
At that point, it would be odd if Parliament was not allowed to take a view.
A very interesting post from Nick, and the first time I've seen a plausible attempt to justify the amendment (those supporting it in the Lords were absolutely dire).
However, Nick's scenario is incomplete. There would actually be three options in the case he outlines:
1. Accepting the deal as negotiated 2. Cancelling the referendum result by taking the 'stay in' option. 3. Telling our EU friends where they can stuff their deal and leaving without a deal (and without paying them £23bn)
Clearly, in such a scenario parliament would and should 'take a view'. In fact, no one could stop them taking a view.
But would they really have democratic and moral legitimacy to impose option 2 on the country, in direct contradiction of the referendum result? Nick's scenario doesn't change the fact that we voted to leave.
Edit: And also, Nick's thinking, if it were replicated in the EU27, demonstrates exactly the point that the amendment could encourage them to offer us a bad deal.
I've always felt that it is best to think of Brexit as a process, and that that process is best spread out over a considerable period of time. Sadly, I appear to be in a minority.
Brexit would have been much more sensibly achieved by a small Remain win and then the UK gradually negotiating its way to a sensible deal over the next 10-20 years. Its why anyone who wanted a relationship with the EU that was anything more than WTO terms should have voted Remain.
A very interesting post from Nick, and the first time I've seen a plausible attempt to justify the amendment (those supporting it in the Lords were absolutely dire).
However, Nick's scenario is incomplete. There would actually be three options in the case he outlines:
1. Accepting the deal as negotiated 2. Cancelling the referendum result by taking the 'stay in' option. 3. Telling our EU friends where they can stuff their deal and leaving without a deal (and without paying them £23bn)
Clearly, in such a scenario parliament would and should 'take a view'. In fact, no one could stop them taking a view.
But would they really have democratic and moral legitimacy to impose option 2 on the country, in direct contradiction of the referendum result? Nick's scenario doesn't change the fact that we voted to leave.
Edit: And also, Nick's thinking, if it were replicated in the EU27, demonstrates exactly the point that the amendment could encourage them to offer us a bad deal.
I agree that those would be the options. In practice I would think that if they were inclined to option 2, they really would need a second referendum. At that point - unlike now - it would be reasonable. "We've done our best to get as deal as you instructed, and here it is. Another option has been offered. Do you want to confirm your decision in principle and take the package, or should we take the second option?" (In theory one could have three options with an alternative vote, but we're getting into nerdy detail there.) While I think there is no serious basis for an immediate second referendum (effectively saying "Are you sure?"), the facts on the table will be different and clearer in two years' time, and I think it'd be quite reasonable to go back at that point. Alternatively, if parties took different views, it could be decided by an election.
I do know the way the EU works quite well, and it's IMO a mistake to think that any motion passed by Parliament will greatly affect their negotiating strategy - after all, if they play really hardball then the "stuff you" option becomes more attractive (there's a variety of Prisoner's Dilemma here). They will be in two minds whether to offer a "stay on" option, but I think it's more likely than not.
As you say, Parliament can do what it likes anyway, amendment or not, so really the key issue is what is promised. If the Government says it will 'consult in detail and give Parliament the chance to vote on the options availablle, but we expect that to be "the deal or Hard Brexit"', I think that would be enough to go on. Frankly none of us know what the landscape will be like in two years.
Mr. Eagles, you do recall Cameron claimed he'd campaign to leave the EU if he didn't get a good enough deal?
Windier than a tunnel in Maranello.
If Brexit turns into a disaster even you'll be wishing we had Cameron's deal available.
The very 'worst' Brexit deal is no deal. Which is better than a bad deal. So I'm not really seeing a 'disaster' at all. Remaining on the other hand would have meant we're irrevocably chained in to the EU, an emerging superstate (of super fragility and internal contradictions), and would essentially lose our democracy. You can't vote for a change of EU government ot change of policy. Remain means the effective death of the UK as a nation state. Now that would be a disaster in my books. As I've said ad nauseam - Remainers never ever talk about and never seem to care about democracy. Just money.
Democracy is a means through which to deliver the best possible outcomes for the largest number of people. That inevitably involves money. The idea that 23rd June 2016 was the last chance we would ever have had to consider our membership of the EU is risible.
The conservative remainers in parliament have a lot of power and influence if they use it.
But they won't be Conservative Remainers in Parliament for very long if they try and use that power and influence.
Yes very true depends if they think their belief what is best for the country outweighs their personal current career prospects.
You don't get or like this democracy lark do you?
Ha, ha. How dare MPs do what they were elected to do, eh? How very Corbynista of you.
When MPs return the power to make a specific decision to the people, they lose the right to overrule that decision.
If they are that insistent that the outcome they believe in should be implemented then they should never have put the question to the people.
Isn't that up to the voters to decide? If only we had elections where that were possible.
Why should the opposition get a vote on our trade deal with a foreign country?
Eh? I am sure you did not mean that to sound like it does sound.
Comments
There is no principle that referendum results are automatically to be honoured by Parliament.
The LibDems got 8% of the vote in 2015 and just under 1.25% of the seats in the House of Commons.
last time i checked the people chose (via a democratic referendum) to stay with FPTP as the means for electing their MP's or do you want to ignore that referendum too? And BTW 8% of the Lords would give them 64 Lords not 109. And what are we doing with hereditary peers in the 21st century?
Voters rejected AV, it is true. My point was that referring to the LDs number of MPs as a reason for not taking any notice of them is not necessarily democratic given that the number of MPs does not reflect the support they had in the country at the last election.
NEW THREAD
I am not opposed to parliamentary democracy, but the fact is we elect governments to negotiate with other countries, not parliaments. We voted to Leave, and it is for the government of the time, now and in the future, to negotiate with foreign powers. So let them get on with it, and if its no good, the next lot can sort it out.
Er wot? It was £1.11 just before the referendum. http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time
Prices below £1 were due to a bottomed-out oil price but that was January 2016, not June 2016.
http://charts.moneyam.com/Chart.aspx?Provider=EOD&Code=GB@IB.1&Size=603&Skin=GreenRed&Type=2&Scale=0&Span=YEAR2&MA=&OVER=&IND=&COMP=&XCycle=&XFormat=&Layout=Default;HisDate&SV=0&LP=0&LVT=0
Price today £1.20, so about £16.50/year on the average motorist's bill. Rather less than my recent council tax rise!
I do know the way the EU works quite well, and it's IMO a mistake to think that any motion passed by Parliament will greatly affect their negotiating strategy - after all, if they play really hardball then the "stuff you" option becomes more attractive (there's a variety of Prisoner's Dilemma here). They will be in two minds whether to offer a "stay on" option, but I think it's more likely than not.
As you say, Parliament can do what it likes anyway, amendment or not, so really the key issue is what is promised. If the Government says it will 'consult in detail and give Parliament the chance to vote on the options availablle, but we expect that to be "the deal or Hard Brexit"', I think that would be enough to go on. Frankly none of us know what the landscape will be like in two years.
http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time
The £ was overvalued at $1.50. But I remember when it was worth about $1, and when it was worth $2.