The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered is now controversial
Yeah but it won't all suddenly end then, even if we are 'out'. It's all just starting for real then.
Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Nope - from the confidence of a majority of the House
It can be a minority but if the House won’t sling it out then it has all the power and authority of the Executive (it just may find it difficult to legislate)
Both the Farage Ego Party and Change UK will become irrelevant after Brexit
When will “after Brexit” be though?
I think the UK will definitely be out by the end of October . The EU won’t grant any further extensions unless that was for a second vote or election and I can’t see either happening .
Yeah but it won't all suddenly end then, even if we are 'out'. It's all just starting for real then.
Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
That’s a caricature of the way the constitution works. Historically, parliament has needed to approve treaties that impact on UK law or have financial implications.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial
"The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. "
Really? I fear you're taking your own views and expanding them onto the entire population of the country. For one, do you think Farage would have accepted May's deal, or would he have called it a betrayal? For many people hang their hats on his words.
"merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial"
I want the deal to be delivered. Sadly, many on your side don't want this deal.
Yeah but it won't all suddenly end then, even if we are 'out'. It's all just starting for real then.
Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Nope - from the confidence of a majority of the House
It can be a minority but if the House won’t sling it out then it has all the power and authority of the Executive (it just may find it difficult to legislate)
You get to be PM if you can show you command a majority in the HoC. Essentially you have to be able to pass a money bill. As you govern you derive your authority from that majority.
If you have lost your majority you have lost your authority. This can be partial or absolute.
May forgot she had to build a majority for a Brexit policy in a hung parliament, tried every underhand tactic at the 11th hour to force it and rightfully failed.
May has some valid beef with Tory MPs that disobeyed her whip, but that is as far as it goes.
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial
"The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. "
Really? I fear you're taking your own views and expanding them onto the entire population of the country. For one, do you think Farage would have accepted May's deal, or would he have called it a betrayal? For many people hang their hats on his words.
"merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial"
I want the deal to be delivered. Sadly, many on your side don't want this deal.
Yes, really. Had we left with a softish Brexit, most people would have accepted it given the margin of victory. Farage would have been retired from politics for 3 years and doing a radio show.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
In what way was if not working for us? Life was fine before people started worrying about off shore investment transparency
Yeah but it won't all suddenly end then, even if we are 'out'. It's all just starting for real then.
Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
This is more than a treaty, Charles.
Not really. It’s a series of agreements that various governments have entered into over the years. It’s more significant and expansive than many but at its root it’s no different from a legal perspective
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
Wise words, and a winning tip, from @TheScreamingEagles regarding the thought of Remain inclined MPs trying to stop the implementation of the referendum result.
DESELECT THEM!
"My reading of this is that some Remain MPs are genuinely concerned about losing this referendum, any MP who chooses to ignore the will of the people will be punished by the electorate at the next election, any Tory MP who is party to this will face deselection. More importantly, does Parliament really want to set a precedent for the SNP to ignore the result of a referendum?
I’m a Remainer, but if the electorate, in their infinite wisdom, choose to Leave the EU, our elected representatives should respect that, failure to do so will widen the disconnect many of the electorate feel they have with their elected representatives. But if Parliament does intend to follow this course of action, an early election seems very likely, it is 10/1 on an election in 2016, and 10/1 on an election in 2017, if you’re not on already, you should be."
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
Technically that’s incorrect. As events of the last year have shown, Parliament can assert control over the executive. You may or may not think that’s a good idea, but they clearly can because they clearly have.
Yeah but it won't all suddenly end then, even if we are 'out'. It's all just starting for real then.
Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
Charles is well named. Why bother with elections, MPs or any of it?
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial
"The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. "
Really? I fear you're taking your own views and expanding them onto the entire population of the country. For one, do you think Farage would have accepted May's deal, or would he have called it a betrayal? For many people hang their hats on his words.
"merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial"
I want the deal to be delivered. Sadly, many on your side don't want this deal.
Yes, really. Had we left with a softish Brexit, most people would have accepted it given the margin of victory. Farage would have been retired from politics for 3 years and doing a radio show.
I *love* the way you think you know the mood and spirit of the British people! The PM got a deal, and many people - leavers - are talking about betrayal.
I also think the chances of Farage staying out of politics if May's deal went through is rather remote. Here's some example of his words on the deal:
"Mr Farage claimed the deal Mrs May has proposed would allow Brussels to "totally dominate" the UK with no chance for Britain to "escape aspects" of the agreement."
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered is now controversial
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Nope - from the confidence of a majority of the House
It can be a minority but if the House won’t sling it out then it has all the power and authority of the Executive (it just may find it difficult to legislate)
You get to be PM if you can show you command a majority in the HoC. Essentially you have to be able to pass a money bill. As you govern you derive your authority from that majority.
If you have lost your majority you have lost your authority. This can be partial or absolute.
May forgot she had to build a majority for a Brexit policy in a hung parliament, tried every underhand tactic at the 11th hour to force it and rightfully failed.
May has some valid beef with Tory MPs that disobeyed her whip, but that is as far as it goes.
I agree with all of that.
But historically treaties were a matter for the royal prerogative (ie within the government’s exclusive competence). They didn’t need ratification (gov.uk is a little unclear and I don’t have time to research but suggests this only became a statutory requirement in 2010)
With the caveat that IANAL there’s an argument that the withdrawal agreement doesn’t need ratification because it is just the executive executing the UK’s rights under article 50 with the authority if parliament rather than a treaty itself
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Wise words, and a winning tip, from @TheScreamingEagles regarding the thought of Remain inclined MPs trying to stop the implementation of the referendum result.
DESELECT THEM!
"My reading of this is that some Remain MPs are genuinely concerned about losing this referendum, any MP who chooses to ignore the will of the people will be punished by the electorate at the next election, any Tory MP who is party to this will face deselection. More importantly, does Parliament really want to set a precedent for the SNP to ignore the result of a referendum?
I’m a Remainer, but if the electorate, in their infinite wisdom, choose to Leave the EU, our elected representatives should respect that, failure to do so will widen the disconnect many of the electorate feel they have with their elected representatives. But if Parliament does intend to follow this course of action, an early election seems very likely, it is 10/1 on an election in 2016, and 10/1 on an election in 2017, if you’re not on already, you should be."
1 to ensure his decisions are in the best interest of the security and prospects fo r the country 2 to ensure the best interests of their constituents are being represented
3 if both the above are satisfied then to represent their views in parliament.
So please don’t castigate MPs for voting against the referendum result they are only doing their job
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
In what way was if not working for us? Life was fine before people started worrying about off shore investment transparency
Lots of ways, but mainly (at least for me) a mixture of QMV, the Eurozone and FoM
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
Technically that’s incorrect. As events of the last year have shown, Parliament can assert control over the executive. You may or may not think that’s a good idea, but they clearly can because they clearly have.
I was pointing out from whom Government legally derives its power. I wasn't speaking of who can control it.
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial
"The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. "
Really? I fear you're taking your own views and expanding them onto the entire population of the country. For one, do you think Farage would have accepted May's deal, or would he have called it a betrayal? For many people hang their hats on his words.
"merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial"
I want the deal to be delivered. Sadly, many on your side don't want this deal.
Yes, really. Had we left with a softish Brexit, most people would have accepted it given the margin of victory. Farage would have been retired from politics for 3 years and doing a radio show.
I *love* the way you think you know the mood and spirit of the British people! The PM got a deal, and many people - leavers - are talking about betrayal.
I also think the chances of Farage staying out of politics if May's deal went through is rather remote. Here's some example of his words on the deal:
"Mr Farage claimed the deal Mrs May has proposed would allow Brussels to "totally dominate" the UK with no chance for Britain to "escape aspects" of the agreement."
I am just giving my opinion, its what people tend to do here, Glad you like it,you must have missed me awfully.
As for Farage, it would have had nothing to do with him. There would have been no European Elections, no Brexit Party, and no wind in the sails of those who wanted to make a big song and dance about it
Yeah but it won't all suddenly end then, even if we are 'out'. It's all just starting for real then.
Brexit is for life, not just for Christmas.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered is now controversial
The reason you were banned was not that.
I know (well I never thought it was that, no one ever did say why)
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Nope - from the confidence of a majority of the House
It can be a minority but if the House won’t sling it out then it has all the power and authority of the Executive (it just may find it difficult to legislate)
You get to be PM if you can show you command a majority in the HoC. Essentially you have to be able to pass a money bill. As you govern you derive your authority from that majority.
If you have lost your majority you have lost your authority. This can be partial or absolute.
May forgot she had to build a majority for a Brexit policy in a hung parliament, tried every underhand tactic at the 11th hour to force it and rightfully failed.
May has some valid beef with Tory MPs that disobeyed her whip, but that is as far as it goes.
I agree with all of that.
But historically treaties were a matter for the royal prerogative (ie within the government’s exclusive competence). They didn’t need ratification (gov.uk is a little unclear and I don’t have time to research but suggests this only became a statutory requirement in 2010)
With the caveat that IANAL there’s an argument that the withdrawal agreement doesn’t need ratification because it is just the executive executing the UK’s rights under article 50 with the authority if parliament rather than a treaty itself
Sadly for May this is more than a treaty. There is primary legislation as well and interdependencies , which together formed a complex situation that required parliamentary ascent.
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
Technically that’s incorrect. As events of the last year have shown, Parliament can assert control over the executive. You may or may not think that’s a good idea, but they clearly can because they clearly have.
The government derives its power and authority from the Crown in Parliament.
When the chaos, protests and arguments are still raging in a decade, all eyes will be on Dominic Grieve. Was it really so hard to just let the people decide?
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
As HYUFD will point out, if he hasn't already, the European elections tell us very little about the national political scene. In 2009, the Conservatives finished 12 points ahead of Labour but that didn't presage a Conservative landslide in 2010 and for all Labour finished second in 2014, that didn't stop Cameron winning a majority a year later.
As to whether 2019 will presage an election within a year, it seems unlikely. The Conservatives need a GE like a hole in the head so it won't happen anytime soon even if May departs.
IF, as has been suggested, the Conservatives choose a "Hard" Brexiteer what then? Will that individual seek to take the UK out of the EU without a Deal - if so, I don't see the parliamentary numbers for that. The WA can't clear the Commons either so the deadlock remains.
The only way it might be changed is if the composition of Parliament changes but there's no guarantee a GE would have that effect.
I suppose 30-50 Conservative MPs might defect to the Brexit Party but would they actively bring down the Conservative Government and usher in a minority Labour/SNP Government? To those fearing Caracas-on-Thames it's worth noting the Brexit defectors/DUP/LDs/TIG and others would provide a strong blocking minority so Corbyn and Labour might be in office but their ability to get any serious legislation through would be limited.
Could the Brexit party supplant the Conservatives as the leading party of the centre-right after another GE? Maybe but it's hard to see them having enough Commons votes to take the UK out unilaterally.
If 6-10 Tory MPs resign the Whip following the election of a Hard Brexiteer such as Johnson or Raab, it would mean the Government lacked a majority even with continued DUP support. Throw in a possible by election loss at Brecon & Radnor , and survival looks pretty difficult.
Given the rise of the Brexit Party a GE with a hard Brexiteer Tory leader like Boris or Raab would be less of a worry for the Tories than one with May still at the helm anyway, though the DUP would prop up Boris and Raab and a few Leave Labour MPs like Hoey and Field and Mann might back them too until it is confirmed we are leaving the EU. Of course May is unlikely to go until her WA passes anyway unless forced out
The PM could have negotiated a deal and parliament waive it through, and not one person could have legitimately complained that the result wasnt respected. It would have al been over a long time ago and we could all have moved on.
The PM negotiated a deal, and loads of people are saying that deal doesn't respect the result: including the ERG'ers. Which is why they voted against it.
They would have legitimately complained (in their minds) that the result wasn't respected.
You (and many others on here) keep talking about MPs. I dont care about them, it wasnt their decision. The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. If it wasnt hard enough, she may have been vulnerable to UKIP/BP, if it was too hard, to LD or Lab/TIG, at the next GE that would have been representative democracy.
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial
"The public would have worn whatever the PM said as long as we left. "
Really? I fear you're taking your own views and expanding them onto the entire population of the country. For one, do you think Farage would have accepted May's deal, or would he have called it a betrayal? For many people hang their hats on his words.
"merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial"
I want the deal to be delivered. Sadly, many on your side don't want this deal.
Yes, really. Had we left with a softish Brexit, most people would have accepted it given the margin of victory. Farage would have been retired from politics for 3 years and doing a radio show.
I *love* the way you think you know the mood and spirit of the British people! The PM got a deal, and many people - leavers - are talking about betrayal.
I also think the chances of Farage staying out of politics if May's deal went through is rather remote. Here's some example of his words on the deal:
"Mr Farage claimed the deal Mrs May has proposed would allow Brussels to "totally dominate" the UK with no chance for Britain to "escape aspects" of the agreement."
"Mr Farage said the deal was the "worst in history" and we will "not be able for some years to do trade deals
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
Wise words, and a winning tip, from @TheScreamingEagles regarding the thought of Remain inclined MPs trying to stop the implementation of the referendum result.
DESELECT THEM!
"My reading of this is that some Remain MPs are genuinely concerned about losing this referendum, any MP who chooses to ignore the will of the people will be punished by the electorate at the next election, any Tory MP who is party to this will face deselection. More importantly, does Parliament really want to set a precedent for the SNP to ignore the result of a referendum?
I’m a Remainer, but if the electorate, in their infinite wisdom, choose to Leave the EU, our elected representatives should respect that, failure to do so will widen the disconnect many of the electorate feel they have with their elected representatives. But if Parliament does intend to follow this course of action, an early election seems very likely, it is 10/1 on an election in 2016, and 10/1 on an election in 2017, if you’re not on already, you should be."
1 to ensure his decisions are in the best interest of the security and prospects fo r the country 2 to ensure the best interests of their constituents are being represented
3 if both the above are satisfied then to represent their views in parliament.
So please don’t castigate MPs for voting against the referendum result they are only doing their job
It’s power they aggrogated that was historically denied to them for good reasons
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
If Labour introduce a wealth tax it's going to be tough to implement so they are going to want to keep it simple and practical. They aren't going to want years of wrangling and disputes and legal challenges etc
They won't
We already have a wealth tax on
Yet there is no capital gains or other charge on profits on primary homes despite those being unearned and a function of age, luck or family inheritances.
Not worse off, just at a marginal tax rate of 80%+
It comes from the annual allowance, which includes both employers and employees contribution and also increase in pension pot size. The annual allowance starts to reduce on higher incomes, and can land up the lucky person with a massive tax bill. ,£18,000 for me, before my accountant set to work on claiming unused allowances in previous years. Unlike income tax though, this is a tax on money yet to be received so can cause quite a cash flow problem.
It means experienced clinicians get paid pretty much the same if they reduce to 70% of WTE and do no overtime, or retire earlier than they otherwise intended. Presumably doctors are not the only ones this hits, but Mr Hancock is aware of the impact of this on retention of senior cadres.
What is the annual pension value that accrues to a NHS employee who has reached the maximum lifetime allowance and how does that compare to the pension value from a private sector pension that has reached the same maximum lifetimes allowance. Is it the same?
It is the same allowance, but as we have significant amounts in the old Final Salary Superannuation, the pension pot can significantly increase even with no further payments, £32,000 for me last tax year, so using pretty much my full allowance.
One of the simplest options for me is to take actuarily reduced early retirement, then return to work part time. The combined income would be better than my current salary. In a shortage speciality like mine, I would walk into a job. The difficult thing would be deciding what to drop, as I enjoy pretty much my whole range of activities.
It is a fortunate position to be in, but the problem is that I do not want to retire. I love my job.
Can’t you defer your pension?
If you’re up against the lifetime allowance, you need to bring your pension forward (reduced); deferring it won’t help, assuming it is index linked.
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
He has a massive constituency: as you can see by the way his FarageBrexit party has leapt up. My contention (though iSam disagrees) is that if May's deal had gone through (either by parliamentary vote or not), then Farage would be doing exactly the same thing as he is now.
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on what the heck it meant.
Therefore MPs 'interfering' with the 'result' was inevitable.
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
He has a massive constituency: as you can see by the way his FarageBrexit party has leapt up. My contention (though iSam disagrees) is that if May's deal had gone through (either by parliamentary vote or not), then Farage would be doing exactly the same thing as he is now.
Totally agree the worst thing for him would be WTO leave so he no longer can keep his nose in either the EU trough, or god forbid the Westminster trough
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
He has a massive constituency: as you can see by the way his FarageBrexit party has leapt up. My contention (though iSam disagrees) is that if May's deal had gone through (either by parliamentary vote or not), then Farage would be doing exactly the same thing as he is now.
By what means would he be doing what he is now? We would have left, there would be no Euro Elections, he wouldn't have formed the Brexit Party, and no GE forthcoming.
I was quite a commited Brexiteer but breathed a sigh of relief when it was all over (!) and the major parties had agreed to implement it at the 2017 GE. If Farage had made a comeback after we had left he'd have had next to no constituency
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely iposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority frld legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not c
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
If we had government entirely by Royal Prerogative May would have just been able to sign the WA without Parliament's consent, the courts though affirmed in the Miller case Parliament must be consulted. The Royal Prerogrative is a convention only enabling certain executive actions to be taken without needing to get Parliamentary approval but it cannot be used to directly challenge and try and overrule Parliament
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
He has a massive constituency: as you can see by the way his FarageBrexit party has leapt up. My contention (though iSam disagrees) is that if May's deal had gone through (either by parliamentary vote or not), then Farage would be doing exactly the same thing as he is now.
Totally agree the worst thing for him would be WTO leave so he no longer can keep his nose in either the EU trough, or god forbid the Westminster trough
But he has built a second career as a presenter. I bet his LBC gig is profitable for him, more so than being an MP or MEP.
I am just giving my opinion, its what people tend to do here, Glad you like it,you must have missed me awfully.
As for Farage, it would have had nothing to do with him. There would have been no European Elections, no Brexit Party, and no wind in the sails of those who wanted to make a big song and dance about it
As I say below, Farage's words on May's deal indicate that if it had passed, we'd still have a Brexit Party. The deal is just the start of a process, and there's plenty of ways that another UKIP-style party could interfere with the post-deal negotiations.
And it's not as if hardcore leavers tend not to require much to get wind in their sails! Most of them seem to shake their fists at the sun each morning.
I actually think it was a mistake for Change UK to drop the bloke over the Romanian pick pockets comment. They should have made a virtue of it by saying that obviously being members has its downsides, but these are far outweighed by the positives.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
a hero
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
Oh I've read that. You mean you don't actually know what was said and are going on hearsay?
She has apparently denied it, and in any case stated quite clearly today that herself and Nigel Farage do not agree on ANYTHING other than the referendum result should be delivered, so smear by association cant work here.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
MPs collectively interfered with the referendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
Well, yes, in that the Executive exercises power without explicit legislative authority.
Well, no, in that the Executive can only exist when it maintains the Confidence of the House (legislature). I believe a couple of monarchs learnt that lesson the hard way when they had to accept Prime Ministers they didn't want.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
The peoples are the ones who are to have ever closer union, not the nations. But that distinction is lost on swivel-eyed conspiracists.
I am just giving my opinion, its what people tend to do here, Glad you like it,you must have missed me awfully.
As for Farage, it would have had nothing to do with him. There would have been no European Elections, no Brexit Party, and no wind in the sails of those who wanted to make a big song and dance about it
As I say below, Farage's words on May's deal indicate that if it had passed, we'd still have a Brexit Party. The deal is just the start of a process, and there's plenty of ways that another UKIP-style party could interfere with the post-deal negotiations.
And it's not as if hardcore leavers tend not to require much to get wind in their sails! Most of them seem to shake their fists at the sun each morning.
He may have been upset by the deal, but as we would be mid term, with no Euros coming up, what could he have done? He would have been old news.
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
Technically, no. We had to invent concepts such as the "Crown-In-Parliament" in order to make it work, and the Glorious Revolution only worked because one King replaced another (wrongly IMHO). The Miller case just established that rights granted to Brits should not be withdrawn without Parliamentary approval, it didn't transfer the powers of government to the legislature.
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive got it wrong.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
To qualify to exercise the power of Crown in Parliament you must command a majority in the HoC. To ensure that remains true we used have the concept of matters of confidence. The FTPA screwed with that. Another reason to thank Dave.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
Actually maybe it’s time we had a written constitution, this debate is beyond me. I’m sure someone out there can tell me why our unwritten constitution is better.
MPs collectively interfered wireferendum result, when it could have been clean cut. Without Grieve though, they wouldn't have had the opportunity.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
If you wanted them not to, then leave agreeing what leave meant before the referendum would have been a really good idea.
But the you wouldn't have won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
I’m not sure I understand her argument from that partial report, but she isn’t a “child porn defender” but is defending the right to download child porn.
As a lawyer you should appreciate the importance of precision in sensitive matters
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
He has a massive constituency: as you can see by the way his FarageBrexit party has leapt up. My contention (though iSam disagrees) is that if May's deal had gone through (either by parliamentary vote or not), then Farage would be doing exactly the same thing as he is now.
By what means would he be doing what he is now? We would have left, there would be no Euro Elections, he wouldn't have formed the Brexit Party, and no GE forthcoming.
I was quite a commited Brexiteer but breathed a sigh of relief when it was all over (!) and the major parties had agreed to implement it at the 2017 GE. If Farage had made a comeback after we had left he'd have had next to no constituency
The deal is the start of a process, not the end.
The real work comes afterwards during the transition period. And there's plenty for his constituency to get irate about in the negotiations, as negotiations would involve a little give as well as a little take.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
The peoples are the ones who are to have ever closer union, not the nations. But that distinction is lost on swivel-eyed conspiracists.
And yet it seems that the process is about the states having ever closer union.
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Nope. It’s just a treaty (or series of) that wasn’t working for us any more
One of today’s fresh new Brexit party candidates compared the EU with Nazi Germany. This is so standard among Brexiteers that no one has commented on this at all. Leavers do not treat this as “just a treaty”.
I wasn’t aware of those comments. But whoever did that’s an idiot. Does that make you feel better?
Oh I've read that. You mean you don't actually know what was said and are going on hearsay?
She has apparently denied it, and in any case stated quite clearly today that herself and Nigel Farage do not agree on ANYTHING other than the referendum result should be delivered, so smear by association cant work here.
Has she said how the referendum result should be delivered?
He is a self seeking gravy trainer. Has one of the worst voting records in the EU parliament, only turned up for one meeting of the fisheries committee but is happy to take his 80k odd salary and pension. Why would anyone vote to send him back there?
He has a massive constituency: as you can see by the way his FarageBrexit party has leapt up. My contention (though iSam disagrees) is that if May's deal had gone through (either by parliamentary vote or not), then Farage would be doing exactly the same thing as he is now.
By what means would he be doing what he is now? We would have left, there would be no Euro Elections, he wouldn't have formed the Brexit Party, and no GE forthcoming.
I was quite a commited Brexiteer but breathed a sigh of relief when it was all over (!) and the major parties had agreed to implement it at the 2017 GE. If Farage had made a comeback after we had left he'd have had next to no constituency
The deal is the start of a process, not the end.
The real work comes afterwards during the transition period. And there's plenty for his constituency to get irate about in the negotiations, as negotiations would involve a little give as well as a little take.
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interferedreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revor not affirmed that
Technically, no. We had to invent concepts such as the "Crown-In-Parliament" in order to make it work, and the Glorious Revolution only worked because one King replaced another (wrongly IMHO). The Miller case just established that rights granted to Brits should not be withdrawn without Parliamentary approval, it didn't transfer the powers of government to the legislature.
Effectively it did, it was the Cooper Letwin Bill and the refusal of Parliament to endorse No Deal and its insistence on demanding an extension of Art 50 which forced May to consider further extension. If the executive has no clear majority in Parliament the 'Crown In Parliament' concept effectively becomes the Crown bows to Parliament in most respects.
Charles 1st lost the Civil War trying to defend the 'divine right of Kings' and the PM has discovered without a clear majority of MPs behind her there is no 'divine right of May' that can overrule them
As HYUFD will point out, if he hasn't already, the European elections tell us very little about the national political scene. In 2009, the Conservatives finished 12 points ahead of Labour but that didn't presage a Conservative landslide in 2010 and for all Labour finished second in 2014, that didn't stop Cameron winning a majority a year later.
As to whether 2019 will presage an election within a year, it seems unlikely. The Conservatives need a GE like a hole in the head so it won't happen anytime soon even if May departs.
IF, as has been suggested, the Conservatives choose a "Hard" Brexiteer what then? Will that individual seek to take the UK out of the EU without a Deal - if so, I don't see the parliamentary numbers for that. The WA can't clear the Commons either so the deadlock remains.
The only way it might be changed is if the composition of Parliament changes but there's no guarantee a GE would have that effect.
I suppose 30-50 Conservative MPs might defect to the Brexit Party but would they actively bring down the Conservative Government and usher in a minority Labour/SNP Government? To those fearing Caracas-on-Thames it's worth noting the Brexit defectors/DUP/LDs/TIG and others would provide a strong blocking minority so Corbyn and Labour might be in office but their ability to get any serious legislation through would be limited.
Could the Brexit party supplant the Conservatives as the leading party of the centre-right after another GE? Maybe but it's hard to see them having enough Commons votes to take the UK out unilaterally.
If 6-10 Tory MPs resign the Whip following the election of a Hard Brexiteer such as Johnson or Raab, it would mean the Government lacked a majority even with continued DUP support. Throw in a possible by election loss at Brecon & Radnor , and survival looks pretty difficult.
Given the rise of the Brexit Party a GE with a hard Brexiteer Tory leader like Boris or Raab would be less of a worry for the Tories than one with May still at the helm anyway, though the DUP would prop up Boris and Raab and a few Leave Labour MPs like Hoey and Field and Mann might back them too until it is confirmed we are leaving the EU. Of course May is unlikely to go until her WA passes anyway unless forced out
No Leave Labour MP would prop up a Tory PM on a VNOC - indeed Frank Field supported Corbyn in the VNOC last January.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
The peoples are the ones who are to have ever closer union, not the nations. But that distinction is lost on swivel-eyed conspiracists.
And yet it seems that the process is about the states having ever closer union.
Amazingly the member states are all still radically different. For a conspiracy of omnipotent Eurocrats, it doesn’t seem to be doing very well.
The simpler explanation is that there is no covert conspiracy. That works much better. But the nutjobs can’t accept it.
Actually maybe it’s time we had a written constitution, this debate is beyond me. I’m sure someone out there can tell me why our unwritten constitution is better.
Surely that's simple, the people who will position themselves to write it will be precisely the last people you'd want to.
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive derives its power and authority from a majority in the House of Commons. No majority, no power.
The executive got it wrong.
Technically, the executive derives its power and authority from the Crown. It doesn't need Parliament to govern and frequently governs without it. @Charles is correct. Legislators should legislate, government should govern.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
Well, yes, in that the Executive exercises power without explicit legislative authority.
Well, no, in that the Executive can only exist when it maintains the Confidence of the House (legislature). I believe a couple of monarchs learnt that lesson the hard way when they had to accept Prime Ministers they didn't want.
Absolutely the Executive requires the confidence of Parliament. But until parliament passes a VoNC the Executive has authority
@isam might be right. Had parliament not been required to approve the deal then it is possible that we would have a deal by now. It's certainly an elegant theory.
But counter factuals are fraught with danger. THE DEAL was the only one possible given the EU's red lines and tbf to her albeit belatedly Theresa May's desire not to see a resurgence of The Troubles. But the backstop is untenable for the DUP (and some ERG loons).
The central dilemma remains that with or without parliament's approval the only deal possible is one that will likely bring her government down.
Why will eyes be on Dominic Grieve more than on (say) Mark Francois? Neither of them voted for May's Brexit.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive got it wrong.
We decided via the Civil War and Glorious Revolution that we have parliamentary sovereignty not crown sovereignty and the Gina Miller case, the Spelman amendment and Cooper-Letwin Bills etc like them or not affirmed that
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
To qualify to exercise the power of Crown in Parliament you must command a majority in the HoC. To ensure that remains true we used have the concept of matters of confidence. The FTPA screwed with that. Another reason to thank Dave.
Yes, but Parliament has not withdrawn its confidence. It, of course, reserves the right to do so
To qualify to exercise the power of Crown in Parliament you must command a majority in the HoC. To ensure that remains true we used have the concept of matters of confidence. The FTPA screwed with that. Another reason to thank Dave.
What makes you think TMay would actually have dared make her deal a matter of confidence?
The opposition would have been solidly against on that vote, some of the ERGest Tory MPs might have gone kamikaze, and I doubt the DUP would have blinked. So it would probably have been a vote to bring down her own government, and if she wants one of those she can win it today.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
The peoples are the ones who are to have ever closer union, not the nations. But that distinction is lost on swivel-eyed conspiracists.
And yet it seems that the process is about the states having ever closer union.
You should research heaths comments about what the European project was when we joined “the common market” it was never hidden what the direction of travel was. It’s one of those lies which people obsessed by bent bananas like to peddle
I am just giving my opinion, its what people tend to do here, Glad you like it,you must have missed me awfully.
As for Farage, it would have had nothing to do with him. There would have been no European Elections, no Brexit Party, and no wind in the sails of those who wanted to make a big song and dance about it
As I say below, Farage's words on May's deal indicate that if it had passed, we'd still have a Brexit Party. The deal is just the start of a process, and there's plenty of ways that another UKIP-style party could interfere with the post-deal negotiations.
And it's not as if hardcore leavers tend not to require much to get wind in their sails! Most of them seem to shake their fists at the sun each morning.
There might be a Brexit party but it would have a tiny fraction of the support it is getting now. It certainly wouldn't be enough to worry anyone at elections and Farage would be finished as a politician.
As it is he currently looks like leading the party which will win the consecutive Euro elections and do perhaps terminal damage to the Tory party.
For those who actually think that on balance the Tory party is a good thing (although I don't count myself amongst them) surely passing the WA is an absolute necessity now.
To qualify to exercise the power of Crown in Parliament you must command a majority in the HoC. To ensure that remains true we used have the concept of matters of confidence. The FTPA screwed with that. Another reason to thank Dave.
What makes you think TMay would actually have dared make her deal a matter of confidence?
The opposition would have been solidly against on that vote, some of the ERGest Tory MPs might have gone kamikaze, and I doubt the DUP would have blinked. So it would probably have been a vote to bring down her own government, and if she wants one of those she can win it today.
Ye, you can forget about support from Flint, Mann, Baron etc if it is a confidence vote.
The whole case of the fruitcake Leavers is that the EU is not just some other treaty but the triple-breasted whore of Babylon. You can’t just redeclare it a conventional treaty just because it suits you.
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Well if its just some other treaty then who cares?
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
The peoples are the ones who are to have ever closer union, not the nations. But that distinction is lost on swivel-eyed conspiracists.
Funny therefore that all the emphasis from the EEC/EU over the last 40 years has been on binding the nations closer together. Of course the far more logical explanation is that you are just talking rubbish as usual.
Of course it’s more than a treaty. There’s nothing clandestine about that. Its aims are express.
Can you produce a quote whereby our leaders have said - we're dismantling our nation state and planning to become part of a European one?
And there you fall into a chasm between its express aims and your swivel-eyed lunacy about what you assume its secret aims are.
Ah, I see. My failure is to name the thing.
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
You demeaned yourself when you suggested that politicians were dismantling the state and planning to become part of a European one.
Oh the truth. It's the truth that's annoying you! But don't take my word for what the truth is, just read back on your own words.
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
The peoples are the ones who are to have ever closer union, not the nations. But that distinction is lost on swivel-eyed conspiracists.
And yet it seems that the process is about the states having ever closer union.
Amazingly the member states are all still radically different. For a conspiracy of omnipotent Eurocrats, it doesn’t seem to be doing very well.
The simpler explanation is that there is no covert conspiracy. That works much better. But the nutjobs can’t accept it.
Indeed, the states are very different. They've joined the EU, many of them, based on quite different understandings of what the EU is. It would of course be very wrong to try to characterise the EU anyway - it just is what it is. Nonetheless what is undoubtedly true is that there is a very dense core of the EU that wishes to, and is moving towards 'Union'. There's no hidden agenda, but there is an unannounced one.
Actually maybe it’s time we had a written constitution, this debate is beyond me. I’m sure someone out there can tell me why our unwritten constitution is better.
Surely that's simple, the people who will position themselves to write it will be precisely the last people you'd want to.
Ah! Yes I forgot it would be politicians who wrote it!
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
To qualify to exercise the power of Crown in Parliament you must command a majority in the HoC. To ensure that remains true we used have the concept of matters of confidence. The FTPA screwed with that. Another reason to thank Dave.
Yes. Were it not for the FTPA the government would have fallen with the loss of the first meaningful vote. The perpetuation of a zombie administration is not helpful.
@isam might be right. Had parliament not been required to approve the deal then it is possible that we would have a deal by now. It's certainly an elegant theory.
But counter factuals are fraught with danger. THE DEAL was the only one possible given the EU's red lines and tbf to her albeit belatedly Theresa May's desire not to see a resurgence of The Troubles. But the backstop is untenable for the DUP (and some ERG loons).
The central dilemma remains that with or without parliament's approval the only deal possible is one that will likely bring her government down.
Parliament will not agree on any deal. The indicative votes showed that there is no majority for anything, and those votes were about merely ideas and concepts - if they were detailed into 585 page withdrawal agreements all the disadvantages would be laid bare and no majority would be found for them either in the Commons or in the country. It's just about conceivable that something might get through if a referendum was tacked on, but even that is very doubtful IMO.
Dominic Grieve was behind the move to let MPs have a veto
We do not live in a direct democracy. Since your side couldn't agree on what Brexit would mean before the referendum, and it was close, I have zero problem with MPs voting on the deal.
I want May's vote to go through (though it seems rather pointless now, as the moment it does she'll be thrown out and replaced by someone who'll rip it up). But saying a vote in parliament on the proposed deal is undemocratic is ridiculous.
In addition, many leavers voted against the deal, and gave covers for others to do so. Maybe you should be more angry with them for risking the project?
Who's angry? It's created the path to Farage being a hero
"MPs collectively Interfered with the referendum result."
Hardly. For one thing, anyone voting in the referendum knew that what was being voted on was uncertain and hazy, and had not been agreed with the EU, and therefore the government and MPs would have to decide on won.
They absolutely interfered
Historically the legislature has not needed to approve treaties. We are living the reason why at the moment
If they had left it to the executive as the constitution is supposed to work we would have signed and been preparing for phase 2
The executive got it wrong.
Nope. It was a classic British fudge.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
To qualify to exercise the power of Crown in Parliament you must command a majority in the HoC. To ensure that remains true we used have the concept of matters of confidence. The FTPA screwed with that. Another reason to thank Dave.
Yes, but Parliament has not withdrawn its confidence. It, of course, reserves the right to do so
De facto it has on the govts key policy, in old days the PM would have made the MV itself a confidence issue, but May could not do that. Cameron’s clumsy legislation removed the consequences and set up the constitutional mess we have today.
Comments
It shows how far we have come in the 18 months I was banned that merely wanting the result to be delivered is now controversial
It can be a minority but if the House won’t sling it out then it has all the power and authority of the Executive (it just may find it difficult to legislate)
And the constitution is working just fine. You just don’t like it.
Really? I fear you're taking your own views and expanding them onto the entire population of the country. For one, do you think Farage would have accepted May's deal, or would he have called it a betrayal? For many people hang their hats on his words.
"merely wanting the result to be delivered its now controversial"
I want the deal to be delivered. Sadly, many on your side don't want this deal.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6950891/Man-boxers-FACEPLANTS-ground-tripping-metal-chain-tries-jump-dock.html
If you have lost your majority you have lost your authority. This can be partial or absolute.
May forgot she had to build a majority for a Brexit policy in a hung parliament, tried every underhand tactic at the 11th hour to force it and rightfully failed.
May has some valid beef with Tory MPs that disobeyed her whip, but that is as far as it goes.
DESELECT THEM!
"My reading of this is that some Remain MPs are genuinely concerned about losing this referendum, any MP who chooses to ignore the will of the people will be punished by the electorate at the next election, any Tory MP who is party to this will face deselection. More importantly, does Parliament really want to set a precedent for the SNP to ignore the result of a referendum?
I’m a Remainer, but if the electorate, in their infinite wisdom, choose to Leave the EU, our elected representatives should respect that, failure to do so will widen the disconnect many of the electorate feel they have with their elected representatives. But if Parliament does intend to follow this course of action, an early election seems very likely, it is 10/1 on an election in 2016, and 10/1 on an election in 2017, if you’re not on already, you should be."
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/
The EU is a Union-in-progress. It's even got Union in the name. Nobody has ever voted for this creeping takeover.
I don't mind the slightest thing about the idea, but I object hugely to the clandestine nature of this 'democracy'.
Both leaders of two main parties call for everyone to vote for Farage's Brexit party in dare moment of unanimity.
"Brexit latest news: Theresa May accuses Labour of dragging its feet in compromise talks as Jeremy Corbyn says PM is still refusing to budge"
Why bother with elections, MPs or any of it?
Is their "secret location" an evil cloud base a mile above the direct centre of Britain?
I also think the chances of Farage staying out of politics if May's deal went through is rather remote. Here's some example of his words on the deal:
"Mr Farage claimed the deal Mrs May has proposed would allow Brussels to "totally dominate" the UK with no chance for Britain to "escape aspects" of the agreement."
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1101370/Brexit-news-Nigel-Farage-UK-EU-withdrawal-deal-May-Rees-Mogg-March-to-Leave-latest
"Mr Farage said the deal was the "worst in history" and we will "not be able for some years to do trade deals"."
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/7841305/nigel-farage-savaged-brexit-deal-on-us-tv-hours-before-donald-trump-trashed-it/
He doesn't seem content with the deal, does he?
But historically treaties were a matter for the royal prerogative (ie within the government’s exclusive competence). They didn’t need ratification (gov.uk is a little unclear and I don’t have time to research but suggests this only became a statutory requirement in 2010)
With the caveat that IANAL there’s an argument that the withdrawal agreement doesn’t need ratification because it is just the executive executing the UK’s rights under article 50 with the authority if parliament rather than a treaty itself
1 to ensure his decisions are in the best interest of the security and prospects fo r the country
2 to ensure the best interests of their constituents are being represented
3 if both the above are satisfied then to represent their views in parliament.
So please don’t castigate MPs for voting against the referendum result they are only doing their job
As for Farage, it would have had nothing to do with him. There would have been no European Elections, no Brexit Party, and no wind in the sails of those who wanted to make a big song and dance about it
So express aims to create a super-state, but everyone keep quiet. What's especially true is that nobody in power should ever say this.
I'm not sure I like being called swivel-eyed. However I can't think of any way to retaliate that wouldn't demean me.
https://twitter.com/johnredwood/status/1120714017901826048
The child porn defender and the EU=Nazi Germany nutnut remain Brexit party candidates.
We created the Crown-in-Parliament (the Executive) which exercises the Royal Prerogative on behalf of the Crown.
Over time the scope of the Royal Prerogative has eroded but it is still separate to the legislative authority of Parliament
The sackings didnt cut it when it was UKIP did they? Come now, consistency
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6943297/Devastating-poll-shows-40-Tory-councillors-Nigel-Farages-new-party.html
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/nov/19/comment.radio
I was quite a commited Brexiteer but breathed a sigh of relief when it was all over (!) and the major parties had agreed to implement it at the 2017 GE. If Farage had made a comeback after we had left he'd have had next to no constituency
The EU treaties aren't just treaties, and there has always been an agenda to move 'ever closer' behind them. That agenda hasn't really ever been spelled out as far as I'm aware in any of the major EU Nations.
And it's not as if hardcore leavers tend not to require much to get wind in their sails! Most of them seem to shake their fists at the sun each morning.
She has apparently denied it, and in any case stated quite clearly today that herself and Nigel Farage do not agree on ANYTHING other than the referendum result should be delivered, so smear by association cant work here.
Well, no, in that the Executive can only exist when it maintains the Confidence of the House (legislature). I believe a couple of monarchs learnt that lesson the hard way when they had to accept Prime Ministers they didn't want.
Meanwhile
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/1120598048881676288
As a lawyer you should appreciate the importance of precision in sensitive matters
The real work comes afterwards during the transition period. And there's plenty for his constituency to get irate about in the negotiations, as negotiations would involve a little give as well as a little take.
Charles 1st lost the Civil War trying to defend the 'divine right of Kings' and the PM has discovered without a clear majority of MPs behind her there is no 'divine right of May' that can overrule them
The simpler explanation is that there is no covert conspiracy. That works much better. But the nutjobs can’t accept it.
But counter factuals are fraught with danger. THE DEAL was the only one possible given the EU's red lines and tbf to her albeit belatedly Theresa May's desire not to see a resurgence of The Troubles. But the backstop is untenable for the DUP (and some ERG loons).
The central dilemma remains that with or without parliament's approval the only deal possible is one that will likely bring her government down.
The opposition would have been solidly against on that vote, some of the ERGest Tory MPs might have gone kamikaze, and I doubt the DUP would have blinked. So it would probably have been a vote to bring down her own government, and if she wants one of those she can win it today.
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1972/oct/23/european-communities-summit-conference-1
As it is he currently looks like leading the party which will win the consecutive Euro elections and do perhaps terminal damage to the Tory party.
For those who actually think that on balance the Tory party is a good thing (although I don't count myself amongst them) surely passing the WA is an absolute necessity now.
Deleted. Cannot understand how the block quotes thing works on this site