The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Amber Rudd is against suspending Parliament ! Until of course she dumps that when offered a better job.
I have no time for the no deal Tories who had their position since day 1. But I utterly despise Tories who dump any principles just to get a cabinet job .
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Another one to file away, I actually thought the new international trade experts, the ERG said there would be a few minor problems on day 1 but all running fine in a couple of days.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Brexiteers used to argue that disruption from a No deal exit would be short term and temporary. You seem to be adopting the interesting approach of declaring them them to be the complete opposite.
You really think that it's not reliable? That always looked a bit on the high side. I thought it would just be clipping the bails, but not that surprised to see it going over.
It’s also not what HYUFD was saying literally no more than a week ago, where he was adamant that there WOULD be an election in advance to get a majority to leave and call a referendum in Northern Ireland.
There may well still be.
However if there is not Boris will ensure we leave on October 31st by proroguing Parliament as a last resort
A week ago you were a committed supporter of the Withdrawal Agreement and were adamant that if the House of Commons wouldn’t pass it then there would be an election to deliver the majority to do so. You now seem to have given up on a deal, and are in favour of no deal.
If one is to believe in Boris, a certain laxity of principle is a prerequisite.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
Baker and co outnumber the remainiacs. Why do you keep ignoring them? They are at the very least just as guilty and yet you and Boris worship at their feet by implication at accepting their no deal plan.
The Remainiacs though have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by to take Britain out of the EU by voting both against the Withdrawal Agreement Deal and also by voting against No Deal too
Since we’ve established that the manifesto Brexit promise was predicated on a deal, and since both Remaniacs and Brexitoons have voted against the current deal - the only “betrayers” are the Brexitoons who have voted for “no deal”, which was NOT in the manifesto.
Wrong.
The manifesto commitment was 'We will take Britain out of the EU', not 'We will take Britain out of the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU.'
Just as the 2016 EU referendum majority was for Leave in answer to the question 'Should the United Kingdom Leave the European Union or Remain in the EU ?' not ' Should the United Kimgdom Leave the European Union but only with a Deal?'
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
You’ll have to find the words in the manifesto that committed the Tories to suspend democracy.
You really think that it's not reliable? That always looked a bit on the high side. I thought it would just be clipping the bails, but not that surprised to see it going over.
You really think that it's not reliable? That always looked a bit on the high side. I thought it would just be clipping the bails, but not that surprised to see it going over.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Brexiteers used to argue that disruption from a No deal exit would be short term and temporary. You seem to be adopting the interesting approach of declaring them them to be the complete opposite.
If No Deal strengthens our hand and lead to the Canada style FTA with the EU most Leave voters really want they won't be
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Not without a deal
The 2017 DUP manifesto: "...to make sure Northern Ireland gets the best Brexit deal."
"For our part we will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland, recognizing that we share a land frontier with the Republic and the particular circumstances of our unique history and geography"
"Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union"
"Maintenance of the Common Travel Area"
Where does any of that rule out Brexit with No Deal? It aims to deliver Brexit with the best Deal but it still aims to deliver Brexit
Can you identify the relevant passage that states that?
Also there are THREE years left in the current Parliament. Why the obsession with October 31st? Didn’t see that in any manifestos. Not sure there was even reference to March 31st.
You really think that it's not reliable? That always looked a bit on the high side. I thought it would just be clipping the bails, but not that surprised to see it going over.
You really think that it's not reliable? That always looked a bit on the high side. I thought it would just be clipping the bails, but not that surprised to see it going over.
Roger federer doesnt think it is...
Roger just shouldn't think about using it today!
He is the goat when it comes to playing, he is the absolute worst when it comes to using reviews.
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
You’ll have to find the words in the manifesto that committed the Tories to suspend democracy.
The only suspension of democracy is by MPs who refused to respect the 2016 referendum vote to Leave the EU and by the diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve who refused to respect the manifesto commitment they won their seats on to Leave the EU
You really think that it's not reliable? That always looked a bit on the high side. I thought it would just be clipping the bails, but not that surprised to see it going over.
Roger federer doesnt think it is...
Roger just shouldn't think about using it today!
He is the goat when it comes to playing, he is the absolute worst when it comes to using reviews.
I think he sometimes just uses them for a quick breather between points.
...the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful...
Um, thousands died in Ireland and Scotland, with repercussions that last to this day. The history of the "Glorious Revolution" was written by the winners.
To point out the obvious: if the metropolitan elite today invited in a Dutch army to revoke Article 50, install a new King and Prime Minister, use that Dutch army to kill British and Irish people, then get the media to print articles saying it was the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 2019, you would probably not be supporting it.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Brexiteers used to argue that disruption from a No deal exit would be short term and temporary. You seem to be adopting the interesting approach of declaring them them to be the complete opposite.
If No Deal strengthens our hand and lead to the Canada style FTA with the EU most Leave voters really want they won't be
No deal weakens the UKs hand ! How do you think other countries will look at trade deals with a desperate UK. The UKs hand is strengthened by having a deal with the EU , other countries then know it has secured that with its biggest market.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests date.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
The DUP oppose the dementia proposals, so it did not have a UK majority but the DUP back Brexit.
17 million voters also voted for Brexit unlike the dementia tax
The Dementia Tax got almost 14 million votes
It did not get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP opposed it.
Brexit did get a majority of seats in the UK though as the DUP backed it
Not without a deal
The 2017 DUP manifesto: "...to make sure Northern Ireland gets the best Brexit deal."
"For our part we will work to get the best deal for Northern Ireland, recognizing that we share a land frontier with the Republic and the particular circumstances of our unique history and geography"
"Comprehensive free trade and customs agreement with the European Union"
"Maintenance of the Common Travel Area"
Where does any of that rule out Brexit with No Deal? It aims to deliver Brexit with the best Deal but it still aims to deliver Brexit
Can you identify the relevant passage that states that?
Also there are THREE years left in the current Parliament. Why the obsession with October 31st? Didn’t see that in any manifestos. Not sure there was even reference to March 31st.
The current Commons has quite clearly refused to Leave the EU with a Deal and with No Deal so on that basis will keep us in the EU right up until the next general election in betrayal of the winning Tory and DUP manifestos to Leave the EU
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
You’ll have to find the words in the manifesto that committed the Tories to suspend democracy.
The only suspension of democracy is by MPs who refused to respect the 2016 referendum vote to Leave the EU and by the diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve who refused to respect the manifesto commitment they won their seats on to Leave the EU
Proroguing Parliament is suspending democracy. Black is not white no matter how often you say it.
Maybe we should go back to discussing labour politicians who send their children to private schools. I wonder as an aside would Johnson even know where his go?
...the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful...
Um, thousands died in Ireland and Scotland, with repercussions that last to this day. The history of the "Glorious Revolution" was written by the winners.
To point out the obvious: if the metropolitan elite today invited in a Dutch army to revoke Article 50, install a new King and Prime Minister, use that Dutch army to kill British and Irish people, then get the media to print articles saying it was the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 2019, you would probably not be supporting it.
Except James 11nd was Catholic and most people in England and Wales were Protestant as was the new Dutch King, so William of Orange was also standing up for 'the will of the people'
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
The Brexit Party won the European Parliament elections in Wales in May, just like in England
The Brexit Party got 32% of the vote in Wales (or about 12% of the electorate) so it tells us nothing about whether Wales is still in favour of Brexit.
We know that there are people still strongly in favour of Brexit what we don't know is whether they are still a majority and the evidence we have suggests that they aren't.
The explicitly stop Brexit and Remain in the EU in all circumstances parties ie the LDs, Plaid, the Greens and CUK did not get over 50% combined in Wales in the European Parliament elections
Complete non-sequitur to the point I made. Perhaps you should occasionally respond to what people have actually said rather than manically throwing out random facts.
I said that BXP winning the Euros in Wales but with only getting 32% of vote / 12% of the electorate is not evidence that Wales has not changed its mind on Brexit.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
If not then the constitutional options are simple and singular - call an election to secure a majority. If he is as popular as you insist that he is then this should not cause any problems for him.
To prorogue parliament because the Johnson government does not have a majority is to overturn our entire parliamentary system and appoint the Prime Minister as an unelected dictator. And as others have pointed out it sets a terrifying precedent for the future.
Shocking as it may be for you to hear, but the best interests of Boris Johnson or even the Conservative and Unionist Party are not a higher priority than the best interests of the United Kingdom. It would be a betrayal of everything this country stands for to scrap parliament and govern by decree because the Prime Minister was a gutless coward too scared of securing a democratic mandate.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Brexiteers used to argue that disruption from a No deal exit would be short term and temporary. You seem to be adopting the interesting approach of declaring them them to be the complete opposite.
If No Deal strengthens our hand and lead to the Canada style FTA with the EU most Leave voters really want they won't be
No deal weakens the UKs hand ! How do you think other countries will look at trade deals with a desperate UK. The UKs hand is strengthened by having a deal with the EU , other countries then know it has secured that with its biggest market.
Other countries we are negotiating with are frustrated trade deals with the 5th largest economy in the world cannot be implemented until we have left the EU Customs Union
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
The Tories and DUP won a majority of seats in the UK in 2017 on a manifesto of leaving the EU Deal or No Deal, the fact some diehard Remainer Tory MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Wollaston have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by defecting to CUK or voting with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
You’ll have to find the words in the manifesto that committed the Tories to suspend democracy.
It's the belief that any manifesto committment justifies any action to deliver it that I find quite frightening. Manfesto committments should not be discarded lightly, but to suggest anything can be countenanced to deliver them (or in this case an interpretation of them) is incredible.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
That is dictatorship. Not having a parliamentary majority. Suspending parliament to rule by decree and enact the thing he doe not have the majority in parliament to do.
The alternative is simple. Go to the country first. Call an election vote as soon as parliament meets on 5th September. Win the stunning majority you are clear he will win. Then have the votes for no deal.
No, it is respecting democracy.
The Tories won a clear majority of GB seats in 2017 on a manifesto commitment to take Britain out of the EU and a majority of seats in the UK on that basis with the Leave backing DUP.
The fact diehard Remainer MPs like Grieve and Lee and Gyimah and Soubry and Allen and Wollaston have refused to respect the manifesto commitment they stood on to Leave the EU does not deny the Tories have a mandate to do so
Baker and co outnumber the remainiacs. Why do you keep ignoring them? They are at the very least just as guilty and yet you and Boris worship at their feet by implication at accepting their no deal plan.
The Remainiacs though have betrayed the manifesto they stood on by to take Britain out of the EU by voting both against the Withdrawal Agreement Deal and also by voting against No Deal too
Since we’ve established that the manifesto Brexit promise was predicated on a deal, and since both Remaniacs and Brexitoons have voted against the current deal - the only “betrayers” are the Brexitoons who have voted for “no deal”, which was NOT in the manifesto.
Wrong.
The manifesto commitment was 'We will take Britain out of the EU', not 'We will take Britain out of the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU.'
Just as the 2016 EU referendum majority was for Leave in answer to the question 'Should the United Kingdom Leave the European Union or Remain in the EU ?' not ' Should the United Kimgdom Leave the European Union but only with a Deal?'
Brexit and a changing world. We need to deliver a smooth and orderly departure from the European Union and forge a deep and special partnership with our friends and allies across Europe.
I'm not convinced that the EU would accept the UK back in, unless membership carried broad cross party support like it used to; somewhere around 70 / 30 type numbers.
Why would the EU want to accept the UK with an explicitly anti EU conservative party likely to come to power at some point and start the whole process again.
The UK would find it very hard to rejoin. England, Scotland and Wales would be warmly welcomed.
Wales voted Leave just like England
The pro-EU movement is flourishing in Wales, just like England.
The Brexit Party won the European Parliament elections in Wales in May, just like in England
The Brexit Party got 32% of the vote in Wales (or about 12% of the electorate) so it tells us nothing about whether Wales is still in favour of Brexit.
We know that there are people still strongly in favour of Brexit what we don't know is whether they are still a majority and the evidence we have suggests that they aren't.
The explicitly stop Brexit and Remain in the EU in all circumstances parties ie the LDs, Plaid, the Greens and CUK did not get over 50% combined in Wales in the European Parliament elections
Complete non-sequitur to the point I made. Perhaps you should occasionally respond to what people have actually said .
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Brexiteers used to argue that disruption from a No deal exit would be short term and temporary. You seem to be adopting the interesting approach of declaring them them to be the complete opposite.
If No Deal strengthens our hand and lead to the Canada style FTA with the EU most Leave voters really want they won't be
No deal weakens the UKs hand ! How do you think other countries will look at trade deals with a desperate UK. The UKs hand is strengthened by having a deal with the EU , other countries then know it has secured that with its biggest market.
Other countries we are negotiating with are frustrated trade deals with the 5th largest economy in the world cannot be implemented until we have left the EU Customs Union
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
The Lords might suggest that they should hold a referendum, but ultimately a majority of MPs is what it takes.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
...the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful...
Um, thousands died in Ireland and Scotland, with repercussions that last to this day. The history of the "Glorious Revolution" was written by the winners.
To point out the obvious: if the metropolitan elite today invited in a Dutch army to revoke Article 50, install a new King and Prime Minister, use that Dutch army to kill British and Irish people, then get the media to print articles saying it was the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 2019, you would probably not be supporting it.
Except James 11nd was Catholic and most people in England and Wales were Protestant as was the new Dutch King, so William of Orange was also standing up for 'the will of the people'
You've used the word "except" but your sentence contains a description of the events, not a counter-argument. Explanation isn't exculpation.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes, just as a post Brexit election delivering a mandate to a party committed to rejoin is democratic. We are a parliamentary democracy.
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was ren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
No I don't, I still want a Brexit Deal but as the current Commons clearly refuses to pass one to respect the Leave vote in 2016 No Deal it will have to be unless the Tories can get a majority to pass a Deal before October 31st.
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
That’s exactly the route we should go although I prefer revoke and then hold general election and if and it’s a big if TBP Ltd won a majority on a no deal brexit then they get on with it if they have an overall majority in the commons. Obviously the issue of PR needs to be addressed one day but under the present rules then they take that decision. I don’t think that they would win a majority and would be lucky to get a handful of seats but no one really knows in the world of hypothetical polling which proves absolutely nothing.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was ren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
No I don't, I still want a Brexit Deal but as the current Commons clearly refuses to pass one to respect the Leave vote in 2016 No Deal it will have to be unless the Tories can get a majority to pass a Deal before October 31st.
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
There’s no “ideally” about it. Delivering a smooth and orderly transition was an explicit commitment. And not by an arbitrarily imposed deadline either.
HYUFD - its very simple. Your boy is going to be Prime Minister. At which point he either will command a majority of the Commons or he will not.
Boris does not want a dictatorship, he will simply prorogue Parliament at the end of October to take Britain out of the EU as the Tory manifesto promised but May refused to deliver on then prepare for a November general election
So having taken the U.K. out of the EU with no deal he calls a general election. That is just plain bloody stupid if you think about even the minimum impact of no deal.
It kills the Brexit Party having delivered Brexit and avoids any negative effects of No Deal having real time to get through
It is not possible to avoid any negative effects of No Deal. What makes you think Hammond is lying?
Any full negative effects will take months to be felt
Brexiteers used to argue that disruption from a No deal exit would be short term and temporary. You seem to be adopting the interesting approach of declaring them them to be the complete opposite.
If No Deal strengthens our hand and lead to the Canada style FTA with the EU most Leave voters really want they won't be
No deal weakens the UKs hand ! How do you think other countries will look at trade deals with a desperate UK. The UKs hand is strengthened by having a deal with the EU , other countries then know it has secured that with its biggest market.
Other countries we are negotiating with are frustrated trade deals with the 5th largest economy in the world cannot be implemented until we have left the EU Customs Union
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was to deliver "a smooth and orderly Brexit" minimising dirsuption and agreeing the future terms of our relationship alongside the withdrawal. Did you not read it before citing it?
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
There is no factual reason why it shouldn't do both those things.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
No, I think they'd be perfectly entitled to simply revoke.
If HYUFD represents the modern Tory party then it is not worth saving.
If the modern Tory Party does not deliver Brexit it will die anyway and be replaced by the Brexit Party
Condemned together to the political wastelands
If the modern Tory Party extends again and does not deliver Brexit by the next general election it could also be replaced in power by a Farage led government
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was ren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
Citation required for “ideally”.
The “smooth and orderly” and “deep and special partnership” were not qualified - but were qualifications for “Leave the EU”.
There was also no time limit set on “Leave” so May 2022 would meet the manifesto commitment.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
The referendum route got us to where we are today, no more referendum(?)s thankyou
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
In principle, yes, I think. Which is one reason the referendum in 2016 was so misconceived. You can make a decent argument that only a referendum can unwind the previous one. But in doing so you are compounding the original problem.
I think another referendum can only work if there is a clear consensus going in that 2016 was a mistake that needs overturning. Our two other real options I believe are to kick Brexit into the long grass: we intend to leave but let's take our time to work out how. Or the "Vassal State" that no-one wants.
Bad set of choices that also depend on what our EU partners are prepared to allow.
If HYUFD represents the modern Tory party then it is not worth saving.
If the modern Tory Party does not deliver Brexit it will die anyway and be replaced by the Brexit Party
Condemned together to the political wastelands
If the modern Tory Party extends again and does not deliver Brexit by the next general election it could also be replaced in power by a Farage led government
I doubt it for a broad range of reasons but will leave those for another day
Mr. JS, what annoys me about digital TV is that if you lose the signal for a tiny amount of time, the sound is unintelligible and the picture as bad.
With analogue, the sound would be fine, or at least legible, for a while and the picture would degrade slightly but still be far better than the blocky nonsense of digital.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
No, I think they'd be perfectly entitled to simply revoke.
Which is what I wrote.
But in overturning one referendum they’d be wise to hold a second.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
...the Glorious Revolution was largely peaceful...
Um, thousands died in Ireland and Scotland, with repercussions that last to this day. The history of the "Glorious Revolution" was written by the winners.
To point out the obvious: if the metropolitan elite today invited in a Dutch army to revoke Article 50, install a new King and Prime Minister, use that Dutch army to kill British and Irish people, then get the media to print articles saying it was the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 2019, you would probably not be supporting it.
Except James 11nd was Catholic and most people in England and Wales were Protestant as was the new Dutch King, so William of Orange was also standing up for 'the will of the people'
And yet the Pope supported King Billy and there were Scots Irish Presbyterians fighting for James. Things are hardly ever black and white.
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's lite
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
There is no factual reason why it shouldn't do both those things.
You think trading on WTO terms will lead to a “deep and special partnership?
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's lite
Apart from that, the key pledges were to scrap the pensions triple lock, raise the cost of care threshold to £100,000, means test the Winter Fuel payment, scrap free school lunches but offer primary school free breakfasts, increase the amount levied on firms employing non-EU migrant workers, and cut net migration below 100,000. Don't hear much about betraying everything else in the manifesto; it's almost as though manifesto pledges are unimportant if they aren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
There is no factual reason why it shouldn't do both those things.
You think trading on WTO terms will lead to a “deep and special partnership?
I don't think it will prevent a deep and special partnership, and therefore I don't see a direct contradiction.
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's literally untrue. Just reread the manifesto - the pledge, repeated again and again was ren't the ones some diehard Tory tribalists want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in ories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your ith you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
No I don't, I still want a Brexit Deal but as the current Commons clearly refuses to pass one to respect the Leave vote in 2016 No Deal it will have to be unless the Tories can get a majority to pass a Deal before October 31st.
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
There’s no “ideally” about it. Delivering a smooth and orderly transition was an explicit commitment. And not by an arbitrarily imposed deadline either.
'We will take Britain out of the European Union' was an explicit Tory manifesto commitment, now that could be in a 'smooth and orderly' way with May's Deal but Parliament thrice rejected that so it will have to be with the most 'smooth and orderly' managed No Deal instead if Parliament still refuses to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
No, I think they'd be perfectly entitled to simply revoke.
Which is what I wrote.
But in overturning one referendum they’d be wise to hold a second.
Sorry, I don't think that would be wise. We'd go through all the same stuff as in 2016 and if the voters give the wrong answer again, we'd be back to square one.
The government in the Westminster system only has democratic legitimacy because it has majority support in the Commons. If the government prorogues Parliament because n that is a coup.
The alternative is to elect a majority of MPs who will vote for no deal. That's how our democracy works.
I would rather have PM Farage, elected on a manifesto of no deal, than PM Johnson prorogue Parliament to achieve the same. Can you not see the difference?
The Tories and DUP won a ma with the opposition against the Withdrawal Agreement and voting against No Deal does not mean it has no mandate to be implemented
That's lite
Aparsts want to focus on.
Nope, it is literally true.
Read page 7 of the Tory manifesto, in black and white it says 'We will take Britain out of the European Union', no qualification that is the commitment. End of conversation.
The DUP also backed leaving the EU in their manifesto, they did not back any of the other Tory manifesto commitments the Tories have dropped.
The Tories did not win a majority of seats in the UK but the Tories and DUP combined did
Right, you're getting to the point where your selective quoting and ignoring of what was said is tantamount to simply lying. There is no point in engaging with you.
Sorry you find a clear manifesto commitment to Leave the EU so difficult
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
There is no factual reason why it shouldn't do both those things.
You think trading on WTO terms will lead to a “deep and special partnership?
I don't think it will prevent a deep and special partnership, and therefore I don't see a direct contradiction.
Which WTO traders have a “deep and special partnership” with the EU?
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
Unless 18 million people demonstrate I doubt Boris will care less given 17 million people voted to Leave the EU and he will have delivered on that vote
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes.
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
No, I think they'd be perfectly entitled to simply revoke.
Which is what I wrote.
But in overturning one referendum they’d be wise to hold a second.
Sorry, I don't think that would be wise. We'd go through all the same stuff as in 2016 and if the voters give the wrong answer again, we'd be back to square one.
There aren’t any “good” ways out - only a series of less bad ones. If FPTP resulted in a Remain coalition with fewer votes it would be a right old mess. You need to drive a stake through its heart if you want it to go away - and the only way to do that is defeat it in the same way that it won.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
Unless 18 million people demonstrate I doubt Boris will care less given 17 million people voted to Leave the EU and he will have delivered on that vote
A hysterical thread that takes the author's view on what constitutes democracy as given.
"They moot it in order to impose an irrevocable decision (no deal Brexit) on a House of Commons that shows every sign of wanting to prevent that." Eh? How is it irrevocable? The country can apply to rejoin if it wishes. Or it can subsequently do a deal with the EU if both parties consent. And if it really wanted to prevent a no-deal Brexit, it could have voted for May's deal, instead of rejecting it several times.
"Let us call proroguing Parliament by its proper name: suspending democracy." No, it's suspending Parliament to secure the outcome that people voted for three years ago, and that Parliament has repeatedly failed to implement.
"Secondly, the vote to leave the EU was not a vote to leave the EU without a deal." True, nor was it a mandate to leave with a deal. But Parliament has voted against the deal on offer from the EU several times.
Etc etc etc.
I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment underlying the thread, however. Proroguing Parliament is clearly an option of last resort, and hopefully won't be necessary if it does what the overwhelming majority of its members were elected to do in 2017 - leave the EU. Rather than being anti-democractic, it is clearly an attempt to assert direct democracy over Parliamentary democracy. Left to itself, Parliament will clearly delay forever in implementing the referendum result, which is the same as not implementing it at all. In some countries, such as Switzerland and various American states, it is clear that the will of the people would prevail over that of their representatives. But in the UK, the position is much murkier and should be clarified.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
As a general rule, people find it hard to get worked up about things they can't spell. The idea that proroguing Parliament will provoke mass protests is delusional, as people simply won't care.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
Unless 18 million people demonstrate I doubt Boris will care less given 17 million people voted to Leave the EU and he will have delivered on that vote
That says a lot about Boris and none of it good... I get that you understand the Conservative Party very well but you don't understand any of the other parties. It would be a campaign gift to us in the Lib Dems as it exactly the kind of thing that our supporters and potential supporters care and worry about - nothing would motivate us more than fighting against a dictator PM who suspended democracy. The slogans would write themselves - expect to see "rogue" and "prorogue" used together endlessly on posters of Boris.
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
No I don't, I still want a Brexit Deal but as the current Commons clearly refuses to pass one to respect the Leave vote in 2016 No Deal it will have to be unless the Tories can get a majority to pass a Deal before October 31st.
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
There’s no “ideally” about it. Delivering a smooth and orderly transition was an explicit commitment. And not by an arbitrarily imposed deadline either.
'We will take Britain out of the European Union' was an explicit Tory manifesto commitment, now that could be in a 'smooth and orderly' way with May's Deal but Parliament thrice rejected that so it will have to be with the most 'smooth and orderly' managed No Deal instead if Parliament still refuses to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement
If Parliament won't vote for it, that is, by definition, evidence that the Tory manifesto (even as twisted to support your interpretation) didn't have a majority to pass. You acknowledge that for every other thing in it, so it is illogical to claim that this is somehow different.
There will have been Tory MPs who made firm pledges to their constituents that they would only leave with a deal. They are under no obligation to support No deal, and that would defy the basis on which they were elected.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
Unless 18 million people demonstrate I doubt Boris will care less given 17 million people voted to Leave the EU and he will have delivered on that vote
That says a lot about Boris and none of it good... I get that you understand the Conservative Party very well but you don't understand any of the other parties. It would be a campaign gift to us in the Lib Dems as it exactly the kind of thing that our supporters and potential supporters care and worry about - nothing would motivate us more than fighting against a dictator PM who suspended democracy. The slogans would write themselves - expect to see "rogue" and "prorogue" used together endlessly on posters of Boris.
Actually that says more about HYUFD fantasies than Boris in truth
Boris is hoodwinking ERG to gain office before he pivots to a deal not far fromTM's
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
As a general rule, people find it hard to get worked up about things they can't spell. The idea that proroguing Parliament will provoke mass protests is delusional, as people simply won't care.
With respect, I don't think you could be more wrong. Hopefully neither of us will have to find out who is right or wrong though because, as I said, surely Boris isn't daft enough to try it.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
Unless 18 million people demonstrate I doubt Boris will care less given 17 million people voted to Leave the EU and he will have delivered on that vote
That says a lot about Boris and none of it good... I get that you understand the Conservative Party very well but you don't understand any of the other parties. It would be a campaign gift to us in the Lib Dems as it exactly the kind of thing that our supporters and potential supporters care and worry about - nothing would motivate us more than fighting against a dictator PM who suspended democracy. The slogans would write themselves - expect to see "rogue" and "prorogue" used together endlessly on posters of Boris.
I think the same would apply to all opposition Parties. The idea that it would not provoke anti-Tory tactical voting on a hitherto unprecedented scale, as well as motivating turnout, is for the birds. As you say, the slogans write themselves.
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
Unless 18 million people demonstrate I doubt Boris will care less given 17 million people voted to Leave the EU and he will have delivered on that vote
That says a lot about Boris and none of it good... I get that you understand the Conservative Party very well but you don't understand any of the other parties. It would be a campaign gift to us in the Lib Dems as it exactly the kind of thing that our supporters and potential supporters care and worry about - nothing would motivate us more than fighting against a dictator PM who suspended democracy. The slogans would write themselves - expect to see "rogue" and "prorogue" used together endlessly on posters of Boris.
Fine, will just split the Remainer vote from Labour under FPTP while the Leave vote is largely united behind a Boris led Tory Party
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes, just as a post Brexit election delivering a mandate to a party committed to rejoin is democratic. We are a parliamentary democracy.
While I'm inclined to agree with you and everyone else who answered yes, with one party committed to leaving the EU immediately deal or no deal (probably the latter), the threshold for achieving a no-deal-diamond-hard-brexit is probably only about 40% of the country at the next GE, perhaps even less under a four way split.
Technically it's how our democracy works, but I think most would be howling with outrage if it came to pass.
Yet you argue that “No Deal” will be “smooth and orderly” and somehow result in a “deep and special partnership”!
No I don't, I still want a Brexit Deal but as the current Commons clearly refuses to pass one to respect the Leave vote in 2016 No Deal it will have to be unless the Tories can get a majority to pass a Deal before October 31st.
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
There’s no “ideally” about it. Delivering a smooth and orderly transition was an explicit commitment. And not by an arbitrarily imposed deadline either.
'We will take Britain out of the European Union' was an explicit Tory manifesto commitment, now that could be in a 'smooth and orderly' way with May's Deal but Parliament thrice rejected that so it will have to be with the most 'smooth and orderly' managed No Deal instead if Parliament still refuses to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement
If Parliament won't vote for it, that is, by definition, evidence that the Tory manifesto (even as twisted to support your interpretation) didn't have a majority to pass. You acknowledge that for every other thing in it, so it is illogical to claim that this is somehow different.
There will have been Tory MPs who made firm pledges to their constituents that they would only leave with a deal. They are under no obligation to support No deal, and that would defy the basis on which they were elected.
Name me one Tory MP who made a personal manifesto commitment to their constituents to vote against Brexit unless it was with a Deal? Or who indeed promised to vote against Brexit Deal or No Deal like Grieve?
No, diehard Remainers are on the wrong side of history, just they will not accept it
I'm not a diehard Remainer. I have a poster of the May Deal on my bedroom wall. Right next to Barry Gardiner in a snug tee-shirt.
By 'wrong side of history' I mean this softhead, right-wing populism that is doing the rounds. It's a mistake to align with that. It has a way to run yet, no doubt, but in the longer run it is doomed.
It will be looked back on as an unfortunate aberration - and when it is, how much better to be able to tell your kids and grandkids, your friends and acquaintances, anybody who happens to stop by the house, the checkout girls at Tesco, pretty much everybody really, that you never fell for it?
If Johnson prorogues parliament then I predict we'll see the biggest mass protests and demonstrations in UK history. Surely even Boris Johnson isn't daft or egocentric enough to think that millions taking to the streets to protest against the suspension of democracy on his watch would look good for him?
As a general rule, people find it hard to get worked up about things they can't spell. The idea that proroguing Parliament will provoke mass protests is delusional, as people simply won't care.
With respect, I don't think you could be more wrong. Hopefully neither of us will have to find out who is right or wrong though because, as I said, surely Boris isn't daft enough to try it.
Well, we are in agreement there. I think in practice, more anger will be generated by the likes of Major, Adonis and Miller trying to manipulate the court system to stop Brexit than Johnson bypassing the system to implement it.
On reflection, there is guaranteed to be protests by pro-Remain groups when Brexit actually happens, and it will be difficult to separate out those who are purely anti Brexit, and those who would be in favour or neutral but who oppose proroguing as a way of getting it done. I suspect if it happens, there will be lengthy arguments on here as to the breakdown.
It's easy to use "but democracy" to support any position you want.
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
Yes, just as a post Brexit election delivering a mandate to a party committed to rejoin is democratic. We are a parliamentary democracy.
While I'm inclined to agree with you and everyone else who answered yes, with one party committed to leaving the EU immediately deal or no deal (probably the latter), the threshold for achieving a no-deal-diamond-hard-brexit is probably only about 40% of the country at the next GE, perhaps even less under a four way split.
Technically it's how our democracy works, but I think most would be howling with outrage if it came to pass.
Labour won a 66 seat majority on 35% of the vote in 2005. We've since had a referendum at which 68% supported First Past The Post.
Whatever the outcome of the next GE, there can be no complaints.
Comments
I have no time for the no deal Tories who had their position since day 1. But I utterly despise Tories who dump any principles just to get a cabinet job .
I hope Bozo fires her and Hancock .
This is looking a bit worrying.
The manifesto commitment was 'We will take Britain out of the EU', not 'We will take Britain out of the European Union but only with a Deal with the EU.'
Just as the 2016 EU referendum majority was for Leave in answer to the question 'Should the United Kingdom Leave the European Union or Remain in the EU ?' not ' Should the United Kimgdom Leave the European Union but only with a Deal?'
Also there are THREE years left in the current Parliament. Why the obsession with October 31st? Didn’t see that in any manifestos. Not sure there was even reference to March 31st.
To point out the obvious: if the metropolitan elite today invited in a Dutch army to revoke Article 50, install a new King and Prime Minister, use that Dutch army to kill British and Irish people, then get the media to print articles saying it was the bloodless Glorious Revolution of 2019, you would probably not be supporting it.
I said that BXP winning the Euros in Wales but with only getting 32% of vote / 12% of the electorate is not evidence that Wales has not changed its mind on Brexit.
How does “No Deal” deliver that?
Smooth?
Orderly?
Deep?
Special?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46826345
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3005584/china-economy-would-be-big-winner-no-deal-brexit-un-study
You could argue democracy was under threat from the moment Parliament decided to do everything it could to avoid carrying out the result of the 2016 referendum.
Proroguing Parliament to force no deal is also, as Mr Meeks points out, an outrage to democracy.
But what I want to know is, if we have a second referendum, at which the result is narrowly to remain - say 52/48, then a year after the second referendum we have a general election at which the Brexit Party wins a majority with 40% of the vote on a manifesto pledge to leave more immediately, do they have a democratic mandate to do so?
The Lords might suggest that they should hold a referendum, but ultimately a majority of MPs is what it takes.
The Tories manifesto commitment was clear we would leave the EU, ideally in a smooth or orderly fashion but nonetheless to Leave regardless
Isn't that the manifesto that lost them the election? The one rejected by the electorate creating the current parliamentary deadlock?
Similarly if the LibDems won a majority on re-joining after we have left they would be absolutely entitled to open negotiations. Not that I expect the EU to be keen.
A more tricky case is a GE won before we’ve left by a Remain coalition. In principle they’d be entitled to revokeA50 but probably would be wise to put it to a referendum.
China and the USA will benefit most from increased exports to the UK under No Deal at EU expense, fair enough
The “smooth and orderly” and “deep and special partnership” were not qualified - but were qualifications for “Leave the EU”.
There was also no time limit set on “Leave” so May 2022 would meet the manifesto commitment.
I think another referendum can only work if there is a clear consensus going in that 2016 was a mistake that needs overturning. Our two other real options I believe are to kick Brexit into the long grass: we intend to leave but let's take our time to work out how. Or the "Vassal State" that no-one wants.
Bad set of choices that also depend on what our EU partners are prepared to allow.
With analogue, the sound would be fine, or at least legible, for a while and the picture would degrade slightly but still be far better than the blocky nonsense of digital.
Humbug!
But in overturning one referendum they’d be wise to hold a second.
Federer 2.68
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/tennis/market/1.160376498
Good decision as he has annoyed many people and not just over brexit
However, he must be a possible vonc supporter as he refused to vote for either Boris or Hunt
It is my constituency
"They moot it in order to impose an irrevocable decision (no deal Brexit) on a House of Commons that shows every sign of wanting to prevent that." Eh? How is it irrevocable? The country can apply to rejoin if it wishes. Or it can subsequently do a deal with the EU if both parties consent. And if it really wanted to prevent a no-deal Brexit, it could have voted for May's deal, instead of rejecting it several times.
"Let us call proroguing Parliament by its proper name: suspending democracy." No, it's suspending Parliament to secure the outcome that people voted for three years ago, and that Parliament has repeatedly failed to implement.
"Secondly, the vote to leave the EU was not a vote to leave the EU without a deal." True, nor was it a mandate to leave with a deal. But Parliament has voted against the deal on offer from the EU several times.
Etc etc etc.
I have a lot of sympathy for the sentiment underlying the thread, however. Proroguing Parliament is clearly an option of last resort, and hopefully won't be necessary if it does what the overwhelming majority of its members were elected to do in 2017 - leave the EU. Rather than being anti-democractic, it is clearly an attempt to assert direct democracy over Parliamentary democracy. Left to itself, Parliament will clearly delay forever in implementing the referendum result, which is the same as not implementing it at all. In some countries, such as Switzerland and various American states, it is clear that the will of the people would prevail over that of their representatives. But in the UK, the position is much murkier and should be clarified.
She will now be on the same shit list as tom watson with the cult.
There will have been Tory MPs who made firm pledges to their constituents that they would only leave with a deal. They are under no obligation to support No deal, and that would defy the basis on which they were elected.
Boris is hoodwinking ERG to gain office before he pivots to a deal not far fromTM's
And I think he has read the writing on the wall
As you say, the slogans write themselves.
Technically it's how our democracy works, but I think most would be howling with outrage if it came to pass.
By 'wrong side of history' I mean this softhead, right-wing populism that is doing the rounds. It's a mistake to align with that. It has a way to run yet, no doubt, but in the longer run it is doomed.
It will be looked back on as an unfortunate aberration - and when it is, how much better to be able to tell your kids and grandkids, your friends and acquaintances, anybody who happens to stop by the house, the checkout girls at Tesco, pretty much everybody really, that you never fell for it?
On reflection, there is guaranteed to be protests by pro-Remain groups when Brexit actually happens, and it will be difficult to separate out those who are purely anti Brexit, and those who would be in favour or neutral but who oppose proroguing as a way of getting it done. I suspect if it happens, there will be lengthy arguments on here as to the breakdown.
Whatever the outcome of the next GE, there can be no complaints.