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,
You say that..
The Downing Street cat is indeed practically an elder statesman thesedays, I say we give him a chance.
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?
Yes, but moreso in the sense that we reward the behaviours that lead to such chaos, division and inability to compromise, as well as behaviours to be reckless and partisan, and punish behaviours that would do the opposite.
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.
Which is why it hasn’t been supported by the Commons so far
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
1992 election had 77.7% turnout.
...and was completely set aside in May 1997
1992 votes 33,614,074 2016 votes 33,577,342
I know, I checked...
But I didn't know before you pointed out the 1992 turnout figure.
Really surprised tbh but facts is facts. More people voted for John Major versus Neil Kinnock than could be arsed about the EU.
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
As a Remainer I believed the potential for armageddon in the event of a win for Leave, it was spelled out to me by Messrs Cameron and Osborne. I took their predictions seriously and I voted accordingly. It does not surprise me that Yellowhammer suggests similar conclusions.
Messrs Johnson and Farage and their acolytes claimed the stories of food shortages were a conspiracy by the elite and they dubbed it 'Project Fear'. Today Mr Farage states the only true Brexit is No Deal. I didn't believe Johnson and Farage then and I don't now. I knew what I was voting against. Any Leave voter who claims they weren't voting for No Deal just wasn't paying attention.
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:
How does Boris react? Does he need something concrete to pool the wool over the eyes of those of his MPs flirting with the idea of backing that move out of fear of no deal, so he can tell them it is not necessary because he totally will get a deal you guys?
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.
They are different
A GE constitutes a house of local representatives
the referendum was referring a particularly significant question to the public for instruction
To say “we don’t like your answer please vote again” is to set aside
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 can be voting through an Act of Parliament that doesn't allow for a No Deal Brexit.
That also appears to be the initial plan for next week onwards.
If I were drafting it, I would empower a new person, possibly the Speaker, to negotiate on behalf of Britain on the question of whether to extend the Article 50 period and to act on Britain’s behalf. Boris Johnson would have nothing to do.
Unconstitutional, Boris is head of the Executive branch not Bercow who is merely speaker of the legislature.
The Queen appointed Boris not Bercow her Chief Minister in July
The scope of the Prime Minister’s powers are a matter for Parliament. There is nothing unconstitutional about Parliament redefining them.
NB “unconstitutional” is suspending democracy, as your hero repeatedly refuses to rule out trying to do.
I do hope you are giving your advice pro bono to whoever is charged with the drafting ......
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 blame lies with the leaders who got us into this mess, Cameron most of all, but Johnson, Hague, May and Gove are all culpable. And many more to a lesser degree. History will not be kind to them, and rightly so.
When Parliament returns in September, it should focus on taking as much control as possible over proceedings before moving to a confidence vote. I would say the order of priorities should be:
1) Take control over the order papers: this will surely be possible as Grieve, Cooper et al have shown themselves to be very capable of taking advantage of the grey areas in our constitution, and Bercow has shown himself to be an umpire that favours Parliament over the government
2) Attempt to get primary legislation passed that ties the government's hands, e.g. forcing an extension. Learn the lessons from the ambiguity in the previous law where May was not forced to accept the EU counter-offer
3) Remove the Recess for party conferences: taking three weeks off for parties to discuss policy when we will be only six weeks from a major crisis would be rightly seen as highly irresponsible. Use the time to continue working on the primary legislation needed.
The VONC should then be the final effort in early October if the above does not succeed. This would mean the options have narrowed completely to "government of national unity to extend" or "have an election a month after no-deal Brexit", which should focus minds substantially.
Very happy to see the opposition's plan matches the above closely.
The hardest part will be designing legislation that gives Johnson no leeway in the way May had.
The key advantages the opposition has as a unified force in controlling the parliamentary agenda are 1) they collectively have far more experience as senior MPs than the government, 2) we have an unwritten constitution that means convention can change, and 3) Bercow is clearly on the side of Parliament over the executive, particular regarding Brexit.
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.
And would still want the backstop until such technical solution is proven. It’s bloody ridiculous that something which only kicks in in the event of no FTA within two years is not supported by leavers, PT may understand it but really it’s only cover forTBP Con deal. Farage says every single Tory candidate most support crash out fuck everybody up make loads of money for my mates brexit or they will stand in 65o seats and Johnson is more interested in the future of the Conservative party than the country. May they rot in hell
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.
They are different
A GE constitutes a house of local representatives
the referendum was referring a particularly significant question to the public for instruction
To say “we don’t like your answer please vote again” is to set aside
If even the potential of setting it aside upset MPs at all they could have made following the instruction a requirement, it's a bit late in the day to whinge about the way the law works with referendums now.
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?
Yes, but moreso in the sense that we reward the behaviours that lead to such chaos, division and inability to compromise, as well as behaviours to be reckless and partisan, and punish behaviours that would do the opposite.
With the exception of we high-minded individuals on PB obviously!
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
In my view previous parliament’s had exceeded their powers by permanently delegating rights to the EU without proper authorisation. Unfortunately when we were asked for retrospective consent the only option was to leave the whole rather than to unwind the overreach
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?
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 can be voting through an Act of Parliament that doesn't allow for a No Deal Brexit.
That also appears to be the initial plan for next week onwards.
If I were drafting it, I would empower a new person, possibly the Speaker, to negotiate on behalf of Britain on the question of whether to extend the Article 50 period and to act on Britain’s behalf. Boris Johnson would have nothing to do.
Unconstitutional, Boris is head of the Executive branch not Bercow who is merely speaker of the legislature.
The Queen appointed Boris not Bercow her Chief Minister in July
The scope of the Prime Minister’s powers are a matter for Parliament. There is nothing unconstitutional about Parliament redefining them.
NB “unconstitutional” is suspending democracy, as your hero repeatedly refuses to rule out trying to do.
I do hope you are giving your advice pro bono to whoever is charged with the drafting ......
Far better brains than mine will be working on this.
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
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
In my view previous parliament’s had exceeded their powers by permanently delegating rights to the EU without proper authorisation. Unfortunately when we were asked for retrospective consent the only option was to leave the whole rather than to unwind the overreach
If we had had the planned referendum on Lisbon, we would have voted it down and a lot of people would have felt they had had their eurosceptic say. The EU would have likely become a lot more responsive to UK concerns.
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 can be voting through an Act of Parliament that doesn't allow for a No Deal Brexit.
That also appears to be the initial plan for next week onwards.
If I were drafting it, I would empower a new person, possibly the Speaker, to negotiate on behalf of Britain on the question of whether to extend the Article 50 period and to act on Britain’s behalf. Boris Johnson would have nothing to do.
Unconstitutional, Boris is head of the Executive branch not Bercow who is merely speaker of the legislature.
The Queen appointed Boris not Bercow her Chief Minister in July
The scope of the Prime Minister’s powers are a matter for Parliament. There is nothing unconstitutional about Parliament redefining them.
NB “unconstitutional” is suspending democracy, as your hero repeatedly refuses to rule out trying to do.
I do hope you are giving your advice pro bono to whoever is charged with the drafting ......
Far better brains than mine will be working on this.
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.
And would still want the backstop until such technical solution is proven. It’s bloody ridiculous that something which only kicks in in the event of no FTA within two years is not supported by leavers, PT may understand it but really it’s only cover forTBP Con deal. Farage says every single Tory candidate most support crash out fuck everybody up make loads of money for my mates brexit or they will stand in 65o seats and Johnson is more interested in the future of the Conservative party than the country. May they rot in hell
The English Nationalists pushing Brexit are living, breathing proof that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"
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
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
In my view previous parliament’s had exceeded their powers by permanently delegating rights to the EU without proper authorisation. Unfortunately when we were asked for retrospective consent the only option was to leave the whole rather than to unwind the overreach
If we had had the planned referendum on Lisbon, we would have voted it down and a lot of people would have felt they had had their eurosceptic say. The EU would have likely become a lot more responsive to UK concerns.
I doubt many would disagree with you now... but calling on our inner Cher is not going to solve it, sadly
Things are going to get funny when the conference recess motion isnt passed. Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
It's an open secret that most MPs don't attend party conference anyway, except for the ambitious who go for the leader's speech, and the nerdy ones like me who used to like the obscure fringe debates. Everyone else has heard it all before dozens of times and really the number of times you want to revisit the Gibraltar and Post Office stands is limited.
The fringe events are usually interesting, but most for rank and file members, who get a chance to ask a question of a Cabinet Minister and generally get a more fun time than leafleting Little Snodding for the 17th time.
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 blame lies with the leaders who got us into this mess, Cameron most of all, but Johnson, Hague, May and Gove are all culpable. And many more to a lesser degree. History will not be kind to them, and rightly so.
Cameron definitely will go down as one of the worst PMs ever. Which is a shame in some ways as he's a moderate man. May if she's remembered at all will be seen as someone who failed to overcome an insurmountable problem. Johnson we'll see. He deserves the biggest blame but the kindness of history isn't fair.
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.
And would still want the backstop until such technical solution is proven. It’s bloody ridiculous that something which only kicks in in the event of no FTA within two years is not supported by leavers, PT may understand it but really it’s only cover forTBP Con deal. Farage says every single Tory candidate most support crash out fuck everybody up make loads of money for my mates brexit or they will stand in 65o seats and Johnson is more interested in the future of the Conservative party than the country. May they rot in hell
The English Nationalists pushing Brexit are living, breathing proof that "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels"
Hear hear!
Patriotism - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
Things are going to get funny when the conference recess motion isnt passed. Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
It's an open secret that most MPs don't attend party conference anyway, except for the ambitious who go for the leader's speech, and the nerdy ones like me who used to like the obscure fringe debates. Everyone else has heard it all before dozens of times and really the number of times you want to revisit the Gibraltar and Post Office stands is limited.
The fringe events are usually interesting, but most for rank and file members, who get a chance to ask a question of a Cabinet Minister and generally get a more fun time than leafleting Little Snodding for the 17th time.
That'll just make MPs even madder then - their additional holiday time ruined.
Things are going to get funny when the conference recess motion isnt passed. Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
It's an open secret that most MPs don't attend party conference anyway, except for the ambitious who go for the leader's speech, and the nerdy ones like me who used to like the obscure fringe debates. Everyone else has heard it all before dozens of times and really the number of times you want to revisit the Gibraltar and Post Office stands is limited.
The fringe events are usually interesting, but most for rank and file members, who get a chance to ask a question of a Cabinet Minister and generally get a more fun time than leafleting Little Snodding for the 17th time.
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 blame lies with the leaders who got us into this mess, Cameron most of all, but Johnson, Hague, May and Gove are all culpable. And many more to a lesser degree. History will not be kind to them, and rightly so.
You seem to have forgotten Blair and Brown, oh and Corbyn too.
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.
They are different
A GE constitutes a house of local representatives
the referendum was referring a particularly significant question to the public for instruction
To say “we don’t like your answer please vote again” is to set aside
If even the potential of setting it aside upset MPs at all they could have made following the instruction a requirement, it's a bit late in the day to whinge about the way the law works with referendums now.
I’m not whinging. I’m stating a view it would be unDemocratic and there would be a political cost.
The sort of advice that it's unwise to ignore though.
You mismandate.
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.
They are different
A GE constitutes a house of local representatives
the referendum was referring a particularly significant question to the public for instruction
To say “we don’t like your answer please vote again” is to set aside
If even the potential of setting it aside upset MPs at all they could have made following the instruction a requirement, it's a bit late in the day to whinge about the way the law works with referendums now.
I’m not whinging. I’m stating a view it would be unDemocratic and there would be a political cost.
Not you whinging, MPs whinging about will of the people, when they know referendums do not just remove parliamentary authority.
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 blame lies with the leaders who got us into this mess, Cameron most of all, but Johnson, Hague, May and Gove are all culpable. And many more to a lesser degree. History will not be kind to them, and rightly so.
Cameron definitely will go down as one of the worst PMs ever. Which is a shame in some ways as he's a moderate man. May if she's remembered at all will be seen as someone who failed to overcome an insurmountable problem. Johnson we'll see. He deserves the biggest blame but the kindness of history isn't fair.
Cameron's hand was on the tiller when the ship went down so inevitably he must shoulder the heaviest burden of blame. Little attention will be paid to the rest of his career - who remembers Chamberlain's record and Minister of Health or Eden's successful Foreign Secretaryship? Their reputations are shaped by a single disastrous misjudgement which ended their careers, and Cameron will suffer the same fate.
Things are going to get funny when the conference recess motion isnt passed. Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
It's an open secret that most MPs don't attend party conference anyway, except for the ambitious who go for the leader's speech, and the nerdy ones like me who used to like the obscure fringe debates. Everyone else has heard it all before dozens of times and really the number of times you want to revisit the Gibraltar and Post Office stands is limited.
The fringe events are usually interesting, but most for rank and file members, who get a chance to ask a question of a Cabinet Minister and generally get a more fun time than leafleting Little Snodding for the 17th time.
Do you think they'll be canned this year Nick?
They certainly have been in the past when Autumn elections were called - eg 1959 - 1964 - 1974.
Things are going to get funny when the conference recess motion isnt passed. Hearing CCHQ are making plans for a shortened conference.
It's an open secret that most MPs don't attend party conference anyway, except for the ambitious who go for the leader's speech, and the nerdy ones like me who used to like the obscure fringe debates. Everyone else has heard it all before dozens of times and really the number of times you want to revisit the Gibraltar and Post Office stands is limited.
The fringe events are usually interesting, but most for rank and file members, who get a chance to ask a question of a Cabinet Minister and generally get a more fun time than leafleting Little Snodding for the 17th time.
Do you think they'll be canned this year Nick?
Can they afford to can them? Many of these events are paid for by sponsors hosting events such as dinner seats for £300 etc. If the conferences are cancelled, what are the cash flow implications?
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
You cannot simply ignore the context in which the vote took place. You can try to claim that there is a mandate for No Deal but would you not concede that that has a hollow ring to it when the leave campaign fought the referendum on promises that we would only leave with a deal? Go down that route and you have forsaken any claim to the "democratic" moral high ground .
How do you square the idea that No Deal does have a mandate with the fact that most of the people now making that claim screamed blue murder and threatened civil unrest when it was suggested that joining EFTA fulfilled the referendum mandate?
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 blame lies with the leaders who got us into this mess, Cameron most of all, but Johnson, Hague, May and Gove are all culpable. And many more to a lesser degree. History will not be kind to them, and rightly so.
Cameron definitely will go down as one of the worst PMs ever. Which is a shame in some ways as he's a moderate man. May if she's remembered at all will be seen as someone who failed to overcome an insurmountable problem. Johnson we'll see. He deserves the biggest blame but the kindness of history isn't fair.
I quite liked Cameron in many ways but he is the architect of this mess. The critical flaw was to commit to implementing the result of a referendum in which one of the options was not defined. The current chaos stems from there. If Cameron had bothered to think the process through much of what has followed could have been avoided. As it was he was just concerned with spiking UKIP's guns.
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
In my view previous parliament’s had exceeded their powers by permanently delegating rights to the EU without proper authorisation. Unfortunately when we were asked for retrospective consent the only option was to leave the whole rather than to unwind the overreach
Agreed. I hope we never have a referendum ever, ever again. I am trying to find a way through the fact that the majority of MPs want, if truth be told, a second referendum with Remain on the ballot. And squaring that circle with actually leaving to ensure the first is actioned. We are where I would ideally not like to be, but where we are. Others are simply repeating "Vote for the Deal!". But the Deal is not coming back. Boris would be insane to introduce it, and has no guarantee of it passing. If it did pass Farage would scream betrayal and the Tories would be finished. Ditto an extension. An extension forced by Parliament simply kicks the can. A GE would likely produce another hung Parliament in my view, and therefore solve nowt. No Deal lacks popular legitimacy. And NO MPs were elected on that basis. A new, different Deal looks exceedingly unlikely in the short time we have.
The only logical answer is to Leave, on condition that a referendum is pencilled in for a date some time in the very near future to either confirm or deny. (And even that would need the EU to acquiesce on the terms of re-entry).
Why do some people say "Bregsit" instead of Brexit?
Cos 'Exit' is pronounced 'Egzit' not 'Ex-it'.
Since when??
The penny hasn't dropped!!??
The suspicious gap in the service on the PenWhatever line between 10:15 and 10:45 on that monday morning. Spilling over to some disarray for the rest of the week, particularly on any services using the PenThinggy cutting!
Everyone else has agreed! Sorry.
We all thought you'd know though! It was all so obvious!
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,
At this point Larry the Cat sounds better than any of the alternatives.
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 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,
At this point Larry the Cat sounds better than any of the alternatives.
1) bring Parliament (as a whole) with him 2) negotiate as best he can while Parliament ensure No Deal isn't an option.
Good publicity for Corbyn, anyway. I know we're all being virtuous and above party, but it makes a change from people whinging about him being indecisive and ineffective.
1) bring Parliament (as a whole) with him 2) negotiate as best he can while Parliament ensure No Deal isn't an option.
Good publicity for Corbyn, anyway. I know we're all being virtuous and above party, but it makes a change from people whinging about him being indecisive and ineffective.
And a change from hearing how desperate he is for No Deal.
Good publicity for Corbyn, anyway. I know we're all being virtuous and above party, but it makes a change from people whinging about him being indecisive and ineffective.
I never whinge about Corbyn being indecisive and ineffective Nick. I whinge about the Labour Party being indecisive and ineffective in getting rid of him and purging the militants and entryists.
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 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,
At this point Larry the Cat sounds better than any of the alternatives.
But open it up to Larry and we just get similarly partisan debates - I'm definitely more of a Palmerston man.
1) bring Parliament (as a whole) with him 2) negotiate as best he can while Parliament ensure No Deal isn't an option.
Good publicity for Corbyn, anyway. I know we're all being virtuous and above party, but it makes a change from people whinging about him being indecisive and ineffective.
Good publicity for Corbyn, anyway. I know we're all being virtuous and above party, but it makes a change from people whinging about him being indecisive and ineffective.
I never whinge about Corbyn being indecisive and ineffective Nick. I whinge about the Labour Party being indecisive and ineffective in getting rid of him and purging the militants and entryists.
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 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,
At this point Larry the Cat sounds better than any of the alternatives.
But open it up to Larry and we just get similarly partisan debates - I'm definitely more of a Palmerston man.
Any cat would be better. My dog would give it a damn good go. Even the blasted squirrel in my garden would probably make a better fist of governing the country. I notice, incidentally, that he’s started his stockpiling much earlier than usual.
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
1992 election had 77.7% turnout.
...and was completely set aside in May 1997
1992 votes 33,614,074 2016 votes 33,577,342
I know, I checked...
But I didn't know before you pointed out the 1992 turnout figure.
Really surprised tbh but facts is facts. More people voted for John Major versus Neil Kinnock than could be arsed about the EU.
I believe the electorate was also smaller. Correct ?
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 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,
At this point Larry the Cat sounds better than any of the alternatives.
But open it up to Larry and we just get similarly partisan debates - I'm definitely more of a Palmerston man.
Comments
I do wonder how the current Conservative party will be viewed for its active pursuit of the buffoon now in No. 10.
Labour is just going through another of its Militant Tendancy phases. The timing, however, is beyond dreadful.
But I didn't know before you pointed out the 1992 turnout figure.
Really surprised tbh but facts is facts. More people voted for John Major versus Neil Kinnock than could be arsed about the EU.
Messrs Johnson and Farage and their acolytes claimed the stories of food shortages were a conspiracy by the elite and they dubbed it 'Project Fear'. Today Mr Farage states the only true Brexit is No Deal. I didn't believe Johnson and Farage then and I don't now. I knew what I was voting against. Any Leave voter who claims they weren't voting for No Deal just wasn't paying attention.
A GE constitutes a house of local representatives
the referendum was referring a particularly significant question to the public for instruction
To say “we don’t like your answer please vote again” is to set aside
1) Take control over the order papers: this will surely be possible as Grieve, Cooper et al have shown themselves to be very capable of taking advantage of the grey areas in our constitution, and Bercow has shown himself to be an umpire that favours Parliament over the government
2) Attempt to get primary legislation passed that ties the government's hands, e.g. forcing an extension. Learn the lessons from the ambiguity in the previous law where May was not forced to accept the EU counter-offer
3) Remove the Recess for party conferences: taking three weeks off for parties to discuss policy when we will be only six weeks from a major crisis would be rightly seen as highly irresponsible. Use the time to continue working on the primary legislation needed.
The VONC should then be the final effort in early October if the above does not succeed. This would mean the options have narrowed completely to "government of national unity to extend" or "have an election a month after no-deal Brexit", which should focus minds substantially.
The hardest part will be designing legislation that gives Johnson no leeway in the way May had.
The key advantages the opposition has as a unified force in controlling the parliamentary agenda are 1) they collectively have far more experience as senior MPs than the government, 2) we have an unwritten constitution that means convention can change, and 3) Bercow is clearly on the side of Parliament over the executive, particular regarding Brexit.
I will miss Daniel Craig when he stops doing it.... *sigh!*
The fringe events are usually interesting, but most for rank and file members, who get a chance to ask a question of a Cabinet Minister and generally get a more fun time than leafleting Little Snodding for the 17th time.
Patriotism - what is it good for? Absolutely nothing.
https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1166452688219004928
https://twitter.com/FraserNelson/status/1166444813337673733?s=20
Dr Lisa Cameron MP(?)
Caroline Lucas MP
How do you square the idea that No Deal does have a mandate with the fact that most of the people now making that claim screamed blue murder and threatened civil unrest when it was suggested that joining EFTA fulfilled the referendum mandate?
1) bring Parliament (as a whole) with him
2) negotiate as best he can while Parliament ensure No Deal isn't an 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.
@dixiedean:
Agreed. I hope we never have a referendum ever, ever again. I am trying to find a way through the fact that the majority of MPs want, if truth be told, a second referendum with Remain on the ballot. And squaring that circle with actually leaving to ensure the first is actioned.
We are where I would ideally not like to be, but where we are.
Others are simply repeating "Vote for the Deal!". But the Deal is not coming back. Boris would be insane to introduce it, and has no guarantee of it passing. If it did pass Farage would scream betrayal and the Tories would be finished. Ditto an extension.
An extension forced by Parliament simply kicks the can.
A GE would likely produce another hung Parliament in my view, and therefore solve nowt.
No Deal lacks popular legitimacy. And NO MPs were elected on that basis.
A new, different Deal looks exceedingly unlikely in the short time we have.
The only logical answer is to Leave, on condition that a referendum is pencilled in for a date some time in the very near future to either confirm or deny. (And even that would need the EU to acquiesce on the terms of re-entry).
The suspicious gap in the service on the PenWhatever line between 10:15 and 10:45 on that monday morning. Spilling over to some disarray for the rest of the week, particularly on any services using the PenThinggy cutting!
Everyone else has agreed! Sorry.
We all thought you'd know though! It was all so obvious!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmerston_(cat)
But maybe the tectonic plates are moving over No Deal?
Sad day.
https://unherd.com/2019/08/why-the-humanities-cant-be-saved/
Bless the snowflake.