The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
Remind us of the voting record of the ERG please... you know - the arch Leavers.
Unless the opposition parties are able to VONC Boris successfully they cannot stop him refusing to extend again on October 31st as Head of the Executive branch, if the Opposition parties do manage to VONC Boris successfully a general election is inevitable unless an alternative PM.can be found in 14 days
They could VONC him and then put him back in the hot seat without an election.
And he would still refuse to extend
I agree , Johnson needs a no deal, so Farage will stand his Brexit candidates down. Whatever you think of the Conservative party , they know how to stay in power.
Yes, Boris will refuse to extend again over No Deal as long as he is PM
He might not have that power
He will not legislate in October and will prorogue Parliament if necessary to November to ensure no further extension can be passed.
3 years after Leave won the referendum Brexit will be delivered
He’s not going to prorogue
He will if necessary from who I know in camp Boris
“if necessary” doing a lot of work there
To deliver Brexit on October 31st Deal or No Deal
Just trust me on this ok. It isn’t going to happen.
Just trust me on this, it is, there is no way Boris or Cummings will not deliver Brexit and allow further extension past October 31st
I agree. But they are not going to prorogue Parliament.
But rather than just restate our views how about a £10 straight bet? I win if no prorogaton, you win if it happens in an out of the ordinary fashion
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
The Opposition opposed - that's what Oppositions do.
Of the ruling Tory/DUP coalition more Leavers voted down the deal than Remainers.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
They have the power to control the timetable and ram it through, as has been proven. That's the reality now. Whether it is a good or bad idea is neither here nor there. If the government has backing of the Commons that power is irrelevant. The remain brigage are scrambling for a way to take control and cancel Brexit, one way or another, but that the government is scrambling around for a way to stop them and whinging about it does not take away that its problems are of its own making, in that it lacks a majority for any course of action.
Yes yes, legal defaults and all that, and no shortage of irritation at MPs who voted for A50 who cry so falsely now about its follow through, but the government has lost control and that is its own fault. The wreckers can only wreck because the government has wrecked itself first.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
On the plus side who in their right mind would believe that bunch of muppets this morning could organise a piss up in a brewery without screwing it up more ways than we can imagine?
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Division is now inevitable either way. A vote is the least divisive route.
This is the thinking that both sides are engaged in. "It is now acceptable to have permanent division as long as my side wins". No, we need to compromise all round and come back together as a nation.
The only thing that united the country was May’s deal, but not in the way she hoped. Poor thing.
The only route now that avoids the extremes of no deal or flat revoke is a vote.
As long as that vote doesn't end with the extremes of no deal or revoke. The only reason people could not unite around May's deal is because we have all become posturing children, polarised and infanticised by social media, unwilling to ever reach out to the other side.
I dare say social media does not help, but I doubt it has had that much impact - plenty of the MPs who are so infantile probably do not use any social media. Fundamentally the problem is that not enough leavers were willing to accept a non perfect Brexit, and a great many remainers would not accept any Brexit at all, with the end result that only a 'perfect' Brexit or no Brexit will end up occurring.
The one benefit of the current situation is that more of them are being honest, or closer to honest, about only being willing to entertain their perfect options. Theyr'e not quite their yet, there's still plenty of people who would theoretically vote for a deal, except in practice, or claim to not want no deal, but only support unicorns to avoid it, but they are closer.
I have never had more contempt for MPs of all stripes than I do now. Cromwell may have been an evil genocidal murderer, but maybe he was right about one or two things!
I'd be interested to know what you think Cromwell was right about?
His main problem was religion. I'm completely sure that its been the main problem for all of us for many years. I'm very far from sure that if it didn't exist then we wouldn't have found an even worse reason to disagree, but 'fuck off 'religion.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
The Opposition opposed - that's what Oppositions do.
Not that stupid expression again. No they bloody well do not, hence the many votes oppositions do not oppose. The opposition that took place may be completely reasonable, but 'oppositions oppose' is an idiotic mantra which suggests even when the government proposes something the Opposition supports their job is to oppose it.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
TheJezziah was informing us last night that in effect the WA is fine as changing the PD would be a new deal, but given the non-binding nature of the PD he was essentially acknowledging that not voting for the WA at any of the MVs made no sense.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
The Opposition opposed - that's what Oppositions do.
Not that stupid expression again. No they bloody well do not, hence the many votes oppositions do not oppose. The opposition that took place may be completely reasonable, but 'oppositions oppose' is an idiotic mantra which suggests even when the government proposes something the Opposition supports they're job is to oppose it.
But the government did not propose something the Opposition supported did it? Nor did it make any attempt to reach out to the Opposition to gain support.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it. The likes of Alastair who would have voted for it didn’t have a vote. Nor did I, a remainer unhappy with aspects of Mays deal but who would have supported it to get this done.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it. The likes of Alastair who would have voted for it didn’t have a vote. Nor did I, a remainer unhappy with aspects of Mays deal but who would have supported it to get this done.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Anyhoo, to cheer you all up, here's an upcoming film about Henry V. Given the cast I thought it would be shit, but it looks....weirdly good? Here's the trailer:
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
But the government did not propose something the Opposition supported did it? Nor did it make any attempt to reach out to the Opposition to gain support.
That was not my point, it was your use of the idiotic phrase that they opposed because 'that's what oppositions do'. As I very clearly staetd the opposition that took place on this issue may have been completely reasonable, people will disagree on that, but you extended that to a general principle as though opposition is something automatic which it very much is not - every time it is justified or not, and usually it is very easy to justify because they have opposite policy platforms and ideologies to propose etc, but it is never just to be expected, no matter who is in opposition. It could oppose reasonably 99 times out of a hundred and it still would not, or should not, be just because that's the job, to oppose.
Governments should never expect opposition support of course, they have to justify why they do adopt the ideas of the opposition in turn, and again almost always can in reasonable fashion. But neither oppose the other automatically. And if they do I don't care what party badge they wear, they are idiots.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
Well isn’t that convenient?
What bit of Boris Johnson calling it vassal state stuff or Dominic Raab saying that it was worse than remaining was supposed to entice Remain MPs into backing the deal?
Division is now inevitable either way. A vote is the least divisive route.
This is the thinking that both sides are engaged in. "It is now acceptable to have permanent division as long as my side wins". No, we need to compromise all round and come back together as a nation.
How do you compromise with failure? This isn't a rhetorical question because that's ultimately what we will have to do.
I have some sympathy for both sides. If you are a Remainer it means accepting the turn for the worse that you voted against. If you voted Leave to "take back control", you now need to accept the exact opposite will happen.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
No it didnt
Millions of Leavers will not accept No Deal as an acceptable outcome.
Wasnt even seen as a remote possibility when we voted
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
Well isn’t that convenient?
What bit of Boris Johnson calling it vassal state stuff or Dominic Raab saying that it was worse than remaining was supposed to entice Remain MPs into backing the deal?
As I have said a dozen times or more their job was to use their own brains and make their own decisions as to what was the best way forward for a country that had voted to leave. Others being idiots is no excuse for their own behaviour.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
We are getting to the point where many of our polite fictions may get exposed, which is quite problematic as our system relies heavily on them.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
Well isn’t that convenient?
Whether convenient or not, it's true.
No it’s a pathetic excuse for dishonest behaviour. Just pathetic.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
Well isn’t that convenient?
What bit of Boris Johnson calling it vassal state stuff or Dominic Raab saying that it was worse than remaining was supposed to entice Remain MPs into backing the deal?
As I have said a dozen times or more their job was to use their own brains and make their own decisions as to what was the best way forward for a country that had voted to leave. Others being idiots is no excuse for their own behaviour.
They used their brains. There was no point Remainers voting for a deal Leavers regarded as illegitimate.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it. The likes of Alastair who would have voted for it didn’t have a vote. Nor did I, a remainer unhappy with aspects of Mays deal but who would have supported it to get this done.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
Not when the majority of Leave votes were cast on the basis of repeated assurances from the Leave campaign that there would be a Deal.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Remain wasn't on the table in the first referendum - the options were Cameron's deal or leave the EU (with a deal as Leave explicitly ruled out No Deal whenever it was mentioned).
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
After the Queen's speech the House of Commons debates the Outlawries Bill.
This is supposed to show that the Executive cannot dictate to the House of Commons what it should debate.
Fascinating, that is one tradition I had not heard of. I see from wikipedia that the Procedure Committee recommended keeping it on the same basis I am ok with plenty of our sillier conventions:
The Procedure Committee investigated the history of the bill and determined that because it has symbolic meaning and takes very little time to announce, there is no need to abandon it
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
I have huge respect for those who have the same views as me. The person who I most admire out of all this has been Caroline Flint, who has been principled and eloquent throughout. Lisa Nandy and the rest should not be dependent on the rhetoric of Tory Leavers to do the right thing. She has been elected to one of the oldest parliaments in the world and should have taken the higher ground. Instead she remained in the gutter. Raab and Boris at least did the right thing third time around. That isn't true of the ardent Remainers.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
We are getting to the point where many of our polite fictions may get exposed, which is quite problematic as our system relies heavily on them.
Well quite. Maybe a written constitution wouldn't be such a bad thing after all?
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
Lisa Nandy and the rest should not be dependent on the rhetoric of Tory Leavers to do the right thing.
Quite. Fair enough if she and others simply did not think the WA was something they could support, but the moaning about things like May's language as though that affected the merits or not of the bill, gave a clear indication that some were simply playing at potentially supporting it without any real intention of doing so. Which again, is a perfectly reasonable position to hold if straight up about it.
That is based on the idea that "no deal" came about through unexpected external events, rather than a big chunk of parliament deliberately voting down a deal to come to a "no deal" situation they can then oppose to block Brexit.
Leavers had their chance to support the deal and pass it. Leavers in Parliament, including the current Prime Minister, deliberately sabotaged the deal on offer. In doing so, they abandoned their mandate.
.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
It is absolutely true. Had Boris Johnson been glowing in praise for the deal, Remainer MPs would have seen the light and voted for compromise? That's codswallop. They were determined to do everything they could to vote down any deal May came up with.
For someone who claims to want to Remain and Rejoin, you have a remarkably poor opinion of those who share your purported views.
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
I have huge respect for those who have the same views as me. The person who I most admire out of all this has been Caroline Flint, who has been principled and eloquent throughout. Lisa Nandy and the rest should not be dependent on the rhetoric of Tory Leavers to do the right thing. She has been elected to one of the oldest parliaments in the world and should have taken the higher ground. Instead she remained in the gutter. Raab and Boris at least did the right thing third time around. That isn't true of the ardent Remainers.
I think it’s clear enough who you have the same views as.
As we had opt outs etc, without I would have voted Leave.
However Leave won and that vote must be delivered, otherwise if Corbyn wins the next general election (with a majority or minority Government) I and other Tories will refuse to accept him as a legitimate PM, as I expect would Brexit Party voters
What you can go duck yourselves with that attitude a GE trumps any tinpot referendum.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The puview.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
We are getting to the point where many of our polite fictions may get exposed, which is quite problematic as our system relies heavily on them.
Well quite. Maybe a written constitution wouldn't be such a bad thing after all?
I think the example of other nations is that while such can avoid plenty of confusion in some areas, it does not prevent them outright, occasionally in very important areas.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it. The likes of Alastair who would have voted for it didn’t have a vote. Nor did I, a remainer unhappy with aspects of Mays deal but who would have supported it to get this done.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
Good luck with trying to pin the woes of a No Deal Brexit on Remainers.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
Good luck with trying to pin the woes of a No Deal Brexit on Remainers.
There will be plenty of blame to share around, there can be no question that people who claim to be willing to do anything to avoid no deal but refuse to take specific actions to prevent it such as vote for a deal are indeed responsible to a degree.
However, I consider highly unlikely such would bear the brunt of blame against those who actively proposed no deal and claim it will be totally fine, should we then get plenty of woes.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
No it didnt
Millions of Leavers will not accept No Deal as an acceptable outcome.
Wasnt even seen as a remote possibility when we voted
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The puview.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
We are getting to the point where many of our polite fictions may get exposed, which is quite problematic as our system relies heavily on them.
Well quite. Maybe a written constitution wouldn't be such a bad thing after all?
I think the example of other nations is that while such can avoid plenty of confusion in some areas, it does not prevent them outright, occasionally in very important areas.
India has the longest written constitution in the world. Came into effect in 1950.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
Europhobes actually proposed their own referendum bill in the 2010-15 Parliament. Apparently Parliamentary initiative was alright then.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
I don't know why you've suddenly decided those who voted to remain are to blame for everything that has happened.
If May had been in command of the Conservative Party, she'd hve had enought votes to get the WA through but she spent so long pandering to the ERG the WA, which was meant to get through the Commons, was unacceptable to both the ERG and to those who wanted BINO or no Brexit at all.
We've wasted three years pandering to the factions within the Conservative Party - the sooner they are sent into opposition the better for us all.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
No it didnt
Millions of Leavers will not accept No Deal as an acceptable outcome.
Wasnt even seen as a remote possibility when we voted
As you know I am not known for repetition but
There is no mandate for No Deal
I don’t think you understand the concept of a “mandate” in constitutional terms
The only facts we have is in a leave/remain vote people voted to leave. Everything else is conjecture.
I suspect you mean “there is no popular support for No Deal” and you are probably right about that
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
The constitution is full of polite fictions.
If parliament doesn’t like the Executive they can remove it vis a VONC.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Remain wasn't on the table in the first referendum - the options were Cameron's deal or leave the EU (with a deal as Leave explicitly ruled out No Deal whenever it was mentioned).
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
Revoke is not an option or a solution. You simply cannot have any type of remain on a referendum without having enacted the result of the previous one. I firmly believe it will be either a deal or no deal, and that's how it needs to be to avoid further erosion of public faith in democracy.
The vast majority of Leavers in parliament voted for the deal, including the current Prime Minister. It was mainly voted down by Remainers trying to engineer a No Deal situation they could use as an excuse for overturning the referendum.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it. The likes of Alastair who would have voted for it didn’t have a vote. Nor did I, a remainer unhappy with aspects of Mays deal but who would have supported it to get this done.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
Good luck with trying to pin the woes of a No Deal Brexit on Remainers.
Ben - in truth each and every mp is responsible for this mess
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
I'm interested to understand why you feel that's such a bad thing @Charles?
Because you need to have an executive with the freedom to act (within its remit) as it sees fit and to be judged accordingly by the electorate.
The role of Parliament is represent the electorate in (I) approving or rejecting legislation; (ii) granting supply and authorising taxes; and (iii) generally holding the Executive to account.
Instructing the Executive to follow a specific course of action is something it was not designed to do and is outwith its powers.
The public elects a Parliament (well HoC), not an Executive... Parliament chooses the Executive. Parliament is sovereign and if Parliament chooses to pass a law instructing the Executive to a course of action, so be it.
I cannot see the problem with that but if you could give me an example where it would be a 'bad thing' I'd be prepared to change my view.
Parliament doesn’t chose the executive
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
Hahaha "An executive is chosen by the Crown..." We all know that's a polite fiction - the Queen can only choose the executive the HoC allows her to.
Legal fictions are not fictions. The Queen can appoint whatever PM she damn well pleases, down to and including the Downing Street cat. Admittedly that would not be a good idea, but she can do it,
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
Europhobes actually proposed their own referendum bill in the 2010-15 Parliament. Apparently Parliamentary initiative was alright then.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
Point of Order! Chope believes only the Government, or one of his mates on the back benches, should have that power.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
I think Remain will get another go though.
Possibly yes, but that is a political decision by MPs that will have a cost. It’s also setting aside the largest act of popular democracy in recent history
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
Not when the majority of Leave votes were cast on the basis of repeated assurances from the Leave campaign that there would be a Deal.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
No it didnt
Millions of Leavers will not accept No Deal as an acceptable outcome.
Wasnt even seen as a remote possibility when we voted
As you know I am not known for repetition but
There is no mandate for No Deal
Blimey we're still here. As there seems to be continued confusion let me make it clear. Anyone who voted leave and is the remotest bit surprised that we are on the brink of no deal is an absolute moron not fit to have the vote.
As to mandates, there is a mandate to leave. No further instructions were given, as we hear endlessly from both sides (the "ballot paper question" paradox) and in the absence of any agreement by parliament, then no deal is a perfectly valid way of leaving.
Of course any legal and administrative way of trying to stop no deal up to and including revoking is also legitimate.
That is our system. And it's what you get when you add direct democracy to our existing parliamentary democracy.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
I don't know why you've suddenly decided those who voted to remain are to blame for everything that has happened.
If May had been in command of the Conservative Party, she'd hve had enought votes to get the WA through but she spent so long pandering to the ERG the WA, which was meant to get through the Commons, was unacceptable to both the ERG and to those who wanted BINO or no Brexit at all.
We've wasted three years pandering to the factions within the Conservative Party - the sooner they are sent into opposition the better for us all.
Because it's human nature to blame others for your failures. If Brexit was such a clearly good idea in practice, or even sort of OK, enough MPs would have nodded it through and we would be getting on with it.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
I don’t believe I would have argued it was about Parliamentary sovereignty
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Remain wasn't on the table in the first referendum - the options were Cameron's deal or leave the EU (with a deal as Leave explicitly ruled out No Deal whenever it was mentioned).
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
Revoke is not an option or a solution. You simply cannot have any type of remain on a referendum without having enacted the result of the previous one. I firmly believe it will be either a deal or no deal, and that's how it needs to be to avoid further erosion of public faith in democracy.
How do you overcome the situation that almost or just over half of MPs may well insist on remain being an option? There's no point to one other than to remain in a great many peoples' eyes, it would not matter if there were cast iron logic that remain should not be an option.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
I think Remain will get another go though.
Possibly yes, but that is a political decision by MPs that will have a cost. It’s also setting aside the largest act of popular democracy in recent history
Superseding not setting aside. Just as each GE supersedes the previous one.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it. The likes of Alastair who would have voted for it didn’t have a vote. Nor did I, a remainer unhappy with aspects of Mays deal but who would have supported it to get this done.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
Good luck with trying to pin the woes of a No Deal Brexit on Remainers.
Ben - in truth each and every mp is responsible for this mess
Harsh on such party stalwarts as my MP Simon Hoare who has always toed the party line.
Both sides making two slightly different points, but it is clear that no changes to the WA are going to happen. The ball is still in Boris's court.
Nothing has changed.
I think most people read into the nuances of statements like these their own interpretation
We simply will not know before October as matters ebb and flow with each side continuing along their desired outcomes chucking all kinds of accusations at each other, sadly, until sometime before or on 31st October matters crystalise
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
I think Remain will get another go though.
Possibly yes, but that is a political decision by MPs that will have a cost. It’s also setting aside the largest act of popular democracy in recent history
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
I don’t believe I would have argued it was about Parliamentary sovereignty
Happy to believe you. But it might have been a good idea if you had said that at the time
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Remain wasn't on the table in the first referendum - the options were Cameron's deal or leave the EU (with a deal as Leave explicitly ruled out No Deal whenever it was mentioned).
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
Revoke is not an option or a solution. You simply cannot have any type of remain on a referendum without having enacted the result of the previous one. I firmly believe it will be either a deal or no deal, and that's how it needs to be to avoid further erosion of public faith in democracy.
We could arrange a referendum for Leaving Day. We could Leave at midnight in a short transition, and go back in, or not, when the result is declared. That way we would have left and fulfilled the mandate of the first result. Of course, it is unsatisfactory. But so is every other option.
It feels like a very long time ago now that Leavers kept quacking on about Parliamentary sovereignty.
Parliamentary sovereign is not about parliament trying to unbalance the constitution
These things have evolved in a way that broadly works.
There is a very simple process available to Parliament if they don’t like the executive’s policy: a VONC.
Everything else is bullshit because they don’t want to follow the rules
The Fixed Term Parliaments Act gives them options. They’re taking them.
Passing a law to instruct the executive to act in a certain way is not one of them
Why not? Your only argument seems to be that you don’t like the idea.
Because it is the executive’s role to propose legislation
I believe in the separation of powers
MPs have always been able to propose legislation. Next!
Not to control the timetable and ram it through. A private members bill has a quite different purpose
During the pre-Referendum debate, when it was mostly Eurosceptics arguing with Euroenthusiasts about constitutional matters (oh, happy days), it was stated by the sceptics that the European Parliament did not have the power of legislative initiative and hence was undemocratic. I pointed out that the UK Parliament did not have such power, with the exception of private member's bills (PMB). In response they reassured me that LEAVE was about Parliamentary sovereignty and that we should, to coin a phrase, Vote Leave and Take Control
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
Point of Order! Chope believes only the Government, or one of his mates on the back benches, should have that power.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Remain wasn't on the table in the first referendum - the options were Cameron's deal or leave the EU (with a deal as Leave explicitly ruled out No Deal whenever it was mentioned).
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
Revoke is not an option or a solution. You simply cannot have any type of remain on a referendum without having enacted the result of the previous one. I firmly believe it will be either a deal or no deal, and that's how it needs to be to avoid further erosion of public faith in democracy.
How do you overcome the situation that almost or just over half of MPs may well insist on remain being an option? There's no point to one other than to remain in a great many peoples' eyes, it would not matter if there were cast iron logic that remain should not be an option.
Agree with both of you - with Brom on the principle, with kle on the reality of the situation.
Both sides making two slightly different points, but it is clear that no changes to the WA are going to happen. The ball is still in Boris's court.
Nothing has changed.
How is that clear to you? I honestly can't see how you can think that. It doesn't say the WA is closed and cannot be reopened. It doesn't say the backstop is indespensable. It virtually tells Boris to go away and agree something with the Irish and it will get the EU's blessing.
On the plus side who in their right mind would believe that bunch of muppets this morning could organise a piss up in a brewery without screwing it up more ways than we can imagine?
True, but BJ & Domski have to be given their chance.
That’s simply untrue as a matter of history. The well was poisoned by Leavers such as the Prime Minister. Remain-supporting MPs had no reason to support a deal that Leavers transparently hated.
By the time of the third meaningful vote, MPs outside the Conservative party had no motive given to support a manifestly-detested deal, a detestation whipped up by the likes of Boris Johnson.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
Good luck with trying to pin the woes of a No Deal Brexit on Remainers.
Ben - in truth each and every mp is responsible for this mess
Harsh on such party stalwarts as my MP Simon Hoare who has always toed the party line.
Each and every mp is responsible as clearly demonstrated and evidenced by their inability to arrive at a concensus
History will not be kind to any of the 650 in the HOC today nor in the HOL
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
There is no mandate for No Deal
There is only one mandate from the referendum- to leave. You may not have expected or hoped or planned to leave without a deal but the vote you cast encompassed that possibility
Not when the majority of Leave votes were cast on the basis of repeated assurances from the Leave campaign that there would be a Deal.
We don’t know that. You believe that.
We don't have the knowledge - but the evidence is pretty compelling.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
I think Remain will get another go though.
Possibly yes, but that is a political decision by MPs that will have a cost. It’s also setting aside the largest act of popular democracy in recent history
Each and every mp is responsible as clearly demonstrated and evidenced by their inability to arrive at a concensus
History will not be kind to any of the 650 in the HOC today nor in the HOL
Bit harsh on the Sinn Fein MPs, they've been as consistent as ever, and in doing so theoretically made it easier for consensus to be reached as it requires fewer votes than if they took up their seats!
Anyhoo, to cheer you all up, here's an upcoming film about Henry V. Given the cast I thought it would be shit, but it looks....weirdly good? Here's the trailer:
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Remain wasn't on the table in the first referendum - the options were Cameron's deal or leave the EU (with a deal as Leave explicitly ruled out No Deal whenever it was mentioned).
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
Revoke is not an option or a solution. You simply cannot have any type of remain on a referendum without having enacted the result of the previous one. I firmly believe it will be either a deal or no deal, and that's how it needs to be to avoid further erosion of public faith in democracy.
We could arrange a referendum for Leaving Day. We could Leave at midnight in a short transition, and go back in, or not, when the result is declared. That way we would have left and fulfilled the mandate of the first result. Of course, it is unsatisfactory. But so is every other option.
There is a difference of course between unsatisfactory and unjust. A second referendum leads to a third referendum and is therefore not a solution.
Things are going to get funny when the conference recess motion isnt passed. Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
We can hope. I get that party members want their days in the sun and influence, but this really is not the time for cheerleading rallies and pandering to the base to make them feel better.
Boris Johnson voted for the Withdrawal Agreement at MV3 despite reservations about the backstop etc while diehard Remainers still voted against the Withdrawal Agreement knowing full well that increased the chances of No Deal.
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
Agreed. Their position is dishonest and undemocratic. It’s embarrassing seeing people go into bat for such hypocrisy.
Pretty much all of the Remainers on here were willing to accept May's Deal as I recall. No one in the country voted for No Deal.
Unfortunately it was the remainers in Parliament who voted against it.
Nor I, in the same boat. But notwithstanding that, if the ERG and DUP dingbats had voted for it I believe it would ultimately have got through. The peer pressure on Tory Remainers plus the Labour Leavers would have been enough.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
And we will have remainers to blame if they succeed.
Good luck with trying to pin the woes of a No Deal Brexit on Remainers.
Ben - in truth each and every mp is responsible for this mess
Harsh on such party stalwarts as my MP Simon Hoare who has always toed the party line.
Each and every mp is responsible as clearly demonstrated and evidenced by their inability to arrive at a concensus
History will not be kind to any of the 650 in the HOC today nor in the HOL
Is each and every voter in the last GE not also responsible then, since we voted in such a bunch of incompetents and a hung parliament to boot?
The Queen can appoint whatever PM she damn well pleases, down to and including the Downing Street cat. Admittedly that would not be a good idea, but she can do it,
Both sides making two slightly different points, but it is clear that no changes to the WA are going to happen. The ball is still in Boris's court.
Nothing has changed.
How is that clear to you? I honestly can't see how you can think that. It doesn't say the WA is closed and cannot be reopened. It doesn't say the backstop is indespensable. It virtually tells Boris to go away and agree something with the Irish and it will get the EU's blessing.
Anything Boris comes up with has to be "... compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement ..." (2nd paragraph, left hand side)
That means the current WA as it is the only one. No mention of a new one or changing it.
Ben - in truth each and every mp is responsible for this mess
Blaming MPs for the mess is a little easy in my view. Brexit itself is the intractable mess. Unsurprisingly MPs don't agree on how to deal with it, just like the country at large. Some think we should carry on with the mess because we voted for it; some think messes should be prevented; some think any mess has nothing to do with them.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You miss the essential point. If it was advisory, and it was, it is envisaged that in some circumstances that advice should be set aside.
What are those circumstances? Surely it is when events have moved so differently from prior expectations that it is very doubtful that advice would have been given.
We are in exactly that position. Few seriously argue that a Leave campaign based around no deal would have won.
So there is no mandate.
Your argument doesn’t follow
What you have said is that a case can be made to set aside the referendum
It doesn’t imply that “there is no mandate”: it implies that a politician who was brave enough should ignore the result and justify his/her decision to the voters
Given the public has been consulted once, if events have moved on it should be consulted again.
Sure. A “Deal or no deal” vote would be an entirely legitimate way to break the impasse
Given that we don't seem to have an acceptable deal due to the Backstop a "Revoke or No Deal" vote seems to be the only solution to this.
Nope. “Remain” has been voted down: it doesn’t get another go
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
I think Remain will get another go though.
Possibly yes, but that is a political decision by MPs that will have a cost. It’s also setting aside the largest act of popular democracy in recent history
Comments
The future relationship could have been decided in the transition period once the Withdrawal Agreement was passed as the political declaration was not binding.
Diehard Remainers have only themselves to blame for No Deal, I have no sympathy whatsoever for them
But rather than just restate our views how about a £10 straight bet? I win if no prorogaton, you win if it happens in an out of the ordinary fashion
Of the ruling Tory/DUP coalition more Leavers voted down the deal than Remainers.
Yes yes, legal defaults and all that, and no shortage of irritation at MPs who voted for A50 who cry so falsely now about its follow through, but the government has lost control and that is its own fault. The wreckers can only wreck because the government has wrecked itself first.
What Corbyn CAN do - with Parliament - is make No Deal illegal.
This would leave Johnson as a puppet and thus force him to call an election.
I do not expect this to happen. Not sure why I don't, but I don't.
His main problem was religion. I'm completely sure that its been the main problem for all of us for many years. I'm very far from sure that if it didn't exist then we wouldn't have found an even worse reason to disagree, but 'fuck off 'religion.
An executive is chosen by the Crown, subject to the requirement that it has the confidence of the House of Commons
You could design a political system where ministers are more bureaucrats rather than having executive authority (the Swiss system comes close) but it’s not the one we have.
Parliament has shown on multiple occasions over the last few years that it’s really not good with big executive decisions
You are of course completely wrong. Imagine you’re Lisa Nandy. You voted Remain and are troubled by the idea of not honouring the referendum vote. You have party loyalty and you take that seriously too. You might be persuaded to support a deal that is perceived as having legitimacy and, more importantly, have a chance of passing. But why would you vote for a deal that is manifestly hated by Leavers, break with your party and all to see the vote lose only by 30 instead of 32?
There were plenty of Remain-backing MPs in that position. They stayed with their party line because Leavers made it clear there was no point in leaving it.
Leavers are the destroyers of their own mandate.
The ERG though were working for No Deal all along. They may yet get it but they will only have themselves to blame if they fail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUrZ0uCaGTc
Or indeed any decisions.
If MPs are unable or unwilling to fulfil their duty then the question (deal or no deal) can I suppose be put back to the voters.
Governments should never expect opposition support of course, they have to justify why they do adopt the ideas of the opposition in turn, and again almost always can in reasonable fashion. But neither oppose the other automatically. And if they do I don't care what party badge they wear, they are idiots.
I have some sympathy for both sides. If you are a Remainer it means accepting the turn for the worse that you voted against. If you voted Leave to "take back control", you now need to accept the exact opposite will happen.
Millions of Leavers will not accept No Deal as an acceptable outcome.
Wasnt even seen as a remote possibility when we voted
As you know I am not known for repetition but
There is no mandate for No Deal
This is supposed to show that the Executive cannot dictate to the House of Commons what it should debate.
So a Revoke or No Deal referendum offers just about the only two options out of this mess and neither option was on the original referendum.
Anyone like a nice new constitution?
The Procedure Committee investigated the history of the bill and determined that because it has symbolic meaning and takes very little time to announce, there is no need to abandon it
Now, three years later, we have the Member for Elderly Christchurch Perverts vetoing PMBs because he thinks only Government should initiate legislation, and Leavers of every stripe trying every trick known down to and including prorogation to prevent Parliament having the power of legislative initiative.
However, I consider highly unlikely such would bear the brunt of blame against those who actively proposed no deal and claim it will be totally fine, should we then get plenty of woes.
If May had been in command of the Conservative Party, she'd hve had enought votes to get the WA through but she spent so long pandering to the ERG the WA, which was meant to get through the Commons, was unacceptable to both the ERG and to those who wanted BINO or no Brexit at all.
We've wasted three years pandering to the factions within the Conservative Party - the sooner they are sent into opposition the better for us all.
The only facts we have is in a leave/remain vote people voted to leave. Everything else is conjecture.
I suspect you mean “there is no popular support for No Deal” and you are probably right about that
If parliament doesn’t like the Executive they can remove it vis a VONC.
We do not have government by assembly.
Its not Remainers who have self imposed an arbitrary deadline.
Chope believes only the Government, or one of his mates on the back benches, should have that power.
Nothing has changed.
As to mandates, there is a mandate to leave. No further instructions were given, as we hear endlessly from both sides (the "ballot paper question" paradox) and in the absence of any agreement by parliament, then no deal is a perfectly valid way of leaving.
Of course any legal and administrative way of trying to stop no deal up to and including revoking is also legitimate.
That is our system. And it's what you get when you add direct democracy to our existing parliamentary democracy.
We simply will not know before October as matters ebb and flow with each side continuing along their desired outcomes chucking all kinds of accusations at each other, sadly, until sometime before or on 31st October matters crystalise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqQ99s4Ywnw
That way we would have left and fulfilled the mandate of the first result.
Of course, it is unsatisfactory.
But so is every other option.
Pause.
Well, full of something...
History will not be kind to any of the 650 in the HOC today nor in the HOL
Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
That means the current WA as it is the only one. No mention of a new one or changing it.
2016 votes 33,577,342