MPs from the European Research Group of hardline Brexiteers want to make it a crime for British citizens to undermine official Government negotiations by launching shadow talks or inviting foreign help in drafting domestic legislation.
If the existing treason laws aren't adequate, I agree.
Would that include, say, asking Hungary to veto extensions?
Asking for a SPAD.....
Hopefully Hungary vetoes this one.
And France and the Netherlands and . . .
I would be surprised if they did veto it. It costs the EU nothing other than time to give us an extension. That way, when we hang ourselves with Brexit we cannot point the finger at them.
Considering how often they where accused of interfereing in UK politics, they have been remarkably hands-off (apart from negotiations) in Brexit.
If it all goes horribly wrong, we will have no else to blame but ourselves.
There is, however, a cost to individual EU countries. There are areas of Europe (Dordogne, Brittany, Costa del Sol, Canaries for examples) where ex-pat Brits make up an important component of the local economy and where Brexit is having a significant impact on household decisions (people choosing to emigrate or return to UK). This has a knock-on effect on housing/commerce and the lack of certainty is having a detrimental effect on these areas. I can well imagine the countries affected will want to force a decision one way or the other as soon as possible.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Are we going to have to refer to Hobbes again? My copy of Leviathan is within easy reach.
Until people who post on here understand it, I’m afraid so 😁
That’s what I mentioned earlier . This idea being pushed by the loathsome lunatic Andrea Jenkyns is likely to enrage Tory Rebels and former Tories .
Yes but it's just headbangers, it's not actually getting near a bill. If anyone pulls support because the ERG are wingnuts they were never for the deal
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
'Is class the greatest signifier of cultural identity in C21st Britain? Use both sides of the paper if required.'
I would think it probably is. Religion is still a factor, though, sometimes as a cypher for something else. For example, the militant atheist Richard Dawkins has said that he would feel more comfortable sitting in an English country church than in an urban Mosque - I would be seeking to get this into my answer in some fashion. Examining its implications could in itself hit up against the word limit if I was not careful, so exam technique would be key here.
'Despite the best efforts of Henry VIII, the established religion of the UK is not Protestant Christianity, but the class system. Never fully codified, the doctrine of the faith is at times rigid, at others supple, with its ultimate truths always cloaked in a veil of mystery, yet on every day every inhabitant of these islands pays silent homage to it in invisible temples, through their dress, their speech, their habits, and their manners...'
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?
Unless there is appetite to put Jeremy Corbyn in as PM for long enough to deliver it, insisting on a Ref2 means GE. Which as things stand probably means Con majority and back to this Deal.
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
Corbyn put out a video of him yesterday stating he was against, like some frightened old duffer being asked about the noisy youths on the estate
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
I cannot quite believe we are still arguing over the legal status of the referendum. That was settled as part of the A50 case bloody years ago, and is completely irrelevant given parliament then acted to start things off anyway. Your statement seems to go completely against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
The authority of the sovereign (the Crown) proceeded from the people (Hobbes). The authority of the Crown is exercised by The Executive subject to oversight by Parliament (Macaulay) Parliament is comprised of representatives (Burke)
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?
I know the answer (in my view).
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
Thank goodness we have you here to judge if that is the case.
I’m happy to debate it. But at the moment they’ve said that I’ve “made up” Hobbes
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
I cannot quite believe we are still arguing over the legal status of the referendum. That was settled as part of the A50 case bloody years ago, and is completely irrelevant given parliament then acted to start things off anyway. Your statement seems to go completely against the concept of parliamentary sovereignty.
The authority of the sovereign (the Crown) proceeded from the people (Hobbes). The authority of the Crown is exercised by The Executive subject to oversight by Parliament (Macaulay) Parliament is comprised of representatives (Burke)
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
Hmmm, you're being a bit loose here. "Can't limit the sovereignty of the people"? Depends what you mean by "sovereignty of the people". Refusing to hold a referendum on an issue is, in one sense, limiting the sovereignty of the people. But that's probably not what you mean. So, what exactly do you mean?
The people delegates sovereignty to the people to act on its behalf. So there is never a sovereign act by the people.
But in the referendum there has been a sovereign act.
What I meant was Parliament, having asked the source of its authority can’t just say “yebbut that was only advisory”. Because if it does then it is saying that the representative is more important than the Sovereign.
So what do the EU do if parliament votes for a referendum amendment? Say 'tough, you've got one more week'?
Unless there is appetite to put Jeremy Corbyn in as PM for long enough to deliver it, insisting on a Ref2 means GE. Which as things stand probably means Con majority and back to this Deal.
What other choice is there? Remain has to do something in the next few weeks or leave wins. As Saturday shows, deferring the decision in the hope something will come up is a very viable path for them. Probable defeat tomorrow beats certain defeat today.
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
Scatological hyperbole is a consistent theme of @Dura_Ace ‘s writing. A constant diet of it would be tiring, but he is fairly sparing in its deployment
Maybe so, but I fear he is right. The Tory Party is becoming more and more extreme.
If either one of the two main parties could rid themselves of their extremists then the election would be theirs for the taking. As long as they are moving further from the centre, I will vote tactically.
In this scenario, a vote for Corbyn may be justified. Whilst he and Labour are distasteful, they have less chance of power than the Fool and his entourage in Downing St.
At this point "Getting the Tories Out" may no longer be a Labour battle cry, it may be essential for the well-being of the country,
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
I think it's quite revealing that all the things that Brexiteers want to introduce after Brexit - the "Australian points system" and the "Canada plus plus deal" - hark back to the (white) commonwealth. I confidently expect to see a "New Zealand style pet passport scheme" and a "Union of South Africa phytosanitary regime" added to the lexicon soon, and await the "Look Just Make It The Fucking 1950s Again (2019) Act" going on the statute book. It's all very retro, but also just a little bit sad.
Much truth in this. Sir Ian Botham, for example, has been quite clear. For him, this is all about getting back in touch with our real friends in the Commonwealth. Not all of these are white, tbf, because it includes India and the West Indies. If Ian played cricket against them, they're in, basically, and eligible for a good trade deal and favourable migrant status. Not Pakistan, though, I don't think.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
Where do you think it comes from? And is that view based on the law or morals?
I know the answer (in my view).
I’m interested in whether either @Cyclefree or @Scott_P have a deep understanding of constitutional theory
Parliament has every right to do so, constitutionally. (It would be interesting to see you argue otherwise in a court.) The electorate get to punish them at the next election, if they think their wishes have been flouted.
Philosophically not. It’s not been tested in the past because Cameron was a uniquely special kind of idiot
(Although IMV referendums are rightly used for “rules of the game” type questions)
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
That will help the person screening their emails to know to put it immediately in the junk mail folder then.
Except that Parliament has no right to ask the people to think again. They have an instruction to leave.
Of course they have a right to ask if the instruction has changed
The instruction hasn’t changed
I see that we have more examples of Rees-Mogg-style inventions of new constitutional norms.
Parliament is sovereign and has every right to pass or not whatever laws it damn well pleases subject to any over-arching requirements (the law, ECHR, international treaty obligations) and the verdict of the electorate.
Where does Parliament’s sovereignty derive from?
And when is the Sovereign sovereign?
Unless the source of its sovereignty instructs it
Thanks - so how can the Sovereign not be sovereign with respect to prerogative powers? (Which, if I'm understanding any of this, was effectively the decision of the Supreme Court).
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
Yesm email them and tell them they are Jews in the Reichstag. It wont look at all anti semitic
As recently as 2005 the highest court in the land held that “ The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament” (R (Jackson) v Attorney-General). Unless you have a democratically elected Crown then democracy is, in principal, fettered by an undemocratic source of sovereignty within in Parliament. Okay, I admit that Hobbes would say that the Crown’s power comes from a transfer of right from the people but I think one who maintains that the 2016 referendum was a transfer back need to back up that assertion with more than they have hitherto. Such a fundamental movement of such a Constitutional “bedrock” would, in my view, have been expressly flagged in advance.
Like the PM saying “we will implement the result”?
The point is that Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign only if Parliament doesn’t refer the question to the source of its authority.
They have a mandate to leave (which is much weaker now than before), not an instruction. Important distinction.
Just as an elected Government has a mandate to deliver things in its manifesto. The strength of the mandate (initially) may depend on how prominent the issue was during an election campaign. But the mandate may diminish over time, to the extent that a Government does not feel it can continue with the plan without a renewed mandate.
Democratic votes give mandates, not instructions. The only real exception would be post legislative votes as automatic triggers. A la Scottish and Welsh Devolution referendums.
Nope. There’s an important distinction between elections and referendums
1. An election involves people competing to be a representative of an area. They do this on the basis of a statement of principles and objectives (manifesto). However, manifestos have no legal standing because under Burkean theory MPs are representatives not delegates
2. A referendum involves the sovereign authority being asked a specific question (should I stay or should I go in this case). The answer was clear: Leave. The sovereign authority did not provide any instruction on how, (which is a matter for delegated representatives)
(The way to square the results of the referendum and the election is that the people wanted a soft Brexit. Unfortunately May and the various extreme Remainers have created a situation where that is not likely. However, Boris’s deal is still compliant with the referendum and - assuming it is passed by Parliament - would be compliant with the election result as well)
Except the legislation said that the referendum was advisory. That people argued differently during the campaign does not change that. It was not a legally binding vote.
Parliament can’t limit the sovereignty of the people. It only has delegated authority
Poppycock, Charles. The sovereignty of the people is a too-high-level-to-be-useful theory of the sort political theorists dream up to shore up the whole system. There is no reason to think it true or useful, and other theories are available - i.e. that the system governs by divine right, or (the correct one), because it can.
How, for instance, would the people revoke the delegation of its authority? Candidates need not invoke the death of Magna Carta in their answers.
If they elect a government committed to abolishing elections would work
As recently as 2005 the highest court in the land held that “ The bedrock of the British Constitution is … the Supremacy of the Crown in Parliament” (R (Jackson) v Attorney-General). Unless you have a democratically elected Crown then democracy is, in principal, fettered by an undemocratic source of sovereignty within in Parliament. Okay, I admit that Hobbes would say that the Crown’s power comes from a transfer of right from the people but I think one who maintains that the 2016 referendum was a transfer back need to back up that assertion with more than they have hitherto. Such a fundamental movement of such a Constitutional “bedrock” would, in my view, have been expressly flagged in advance.
Like the PM saying “we will implement the result”?
The point is that Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign only if Parliament doesn’t refer the question to the source of its authority.
Well the court disagreed re the referendum meaning parliament had handed back the delegated authority. And the government didn't contest it either. But I guess they missed this really simple trick.
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
What a disgusting racist thing to say. This is a classic example of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Labour MPs under a Tory government are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the Jews in Nazi Germany. Six million of us were deliberately slaughtered in the biggest genocide in human history. You are a stain of a human being.
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
Yesm email them and tell them they are Jews in the Reichstag. It wont look at all anti semitic
Why is it anti-semitic to highlight those most obviously under threat from the Enabling Act?
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
What a disgusting racist thing to say. This is a classic example of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Labour MPs under a Tory government are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the Jews in Nazi Germany. Six million of us were deliberately slaughtered in the biggest genocide in human history. You are a stain of a human being.
Don't be so stupid! Those Labour MPs would be enhancing the agenda and electoral interests of a thoroughly evil man who will bring misery to those they claim to represent.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
What a disgusting racist thing to say. This is a classic example of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Labour MPs under a Tory government are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the Jews in Nazi Germany. Six million of us were deliberately slaughtered in the biggest genocide in human history. You are a stain of a human being.
Don't be so stupid! Those Labour MPs would be enhancing the agenda and electoral interests of a thoroughly evil man who will bring misery to those they claim to represent.
I am not being stupid. I am someone who has had three grandparents die in the Holocaust. You are a disgusting human being using the suffering of my people to make banal political points for partisan advantage.
And of course you are just the type to turn around and claim there is no anti-Semitism in Corbynism.
A vote for a second ref doesn't give us a second ref, it leads to an election. A really bad tempered election
Referendum or election, I think whichever comes first will be very bad-tempered. And whichever is second won't be much better. I just hope there's no real violence involved as a consequence of the ill-temperedness.
As there was yesterday with the Peoples Vote campaigners terrifying Jacob Rees Moggs son, a dozen police protecting Steve Baker and other politicians from the same mob, and to be fair Diane Abbott needing a dozen more to protect her from mindless pro brexit thugs
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but anyone who puts someone else at fear of their physical safety is liable in common assault or a section 4APublic Order Act offence. So any of the marchers who put JRM in fear of his safety are indeed criminals, yes, but not rioters which is a specific offence that did not occur here. Not all the marchers are criminals but any that made JRM or his son feel unsafe is potentially a criminal. I’m a Remainer but I will call out such behaviour from my “side” when I see it - as I would expect Leavers to do on theirs. And equally JRM should not have taken his son into that situation.
*edit - sorry, section 4A
Disagree on the criticism of JRM
It’s reasonable that an MP with a son interested in politics can take him to see a momentous day in history especially when Dad has a leading role
It’s reasonable that an MP should be able to leave parliament in safety
Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out. On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would. Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
Well it was going to be quite a long post from me - relieved to be off the hook tbh - because as you say it would need to cover not only the unwritten parts but the erstwhile unspoken parts - the very subtle nuances - some of which cannot be known with any certainty to exist until they spring to life in a particular set of circumstances. So, yes, all told it is perhaps better to go with 'there is no such thing as sovereignty'. There is only something which is far more concrete and understandable. Power.
If Parliament is not accountable to a sovereign people then it has power without responsibility...
Slight issue: there are truths hiding inside the constitution that aren't always spelled out. On question I have it what would result from a majority in parliament decreeing that all future elections would be cancelled. Would the courts strike such legislation down? I can imagine they would. Perhaps the real answer is that there is no such thing as sovereignty, that we are all subjects of the dominion of others. And no bad thing, if so.
Well it was going to be quite a long post from me - relieved to be off the hook tbh - because as you say it would need to cover not only the unwritten parts but the erstwhile unspoken parts - the very subtle nuances - some of which cannot be known with any certainty to exist until they spring to life in a particular set of circumstances. So, yes, all told it is perhaps better to go with 'there is no such thing as sovereignty'. There is only something which is far more concrete and understandable. Power.
If Parliament is not accountable to a sovereign people then it has power without responsibility...
Personally I think labour will be making a huge strategic error if they seek to amend the legislation next week (so they will make it, of course).
If parliament tags on lots of wish lists to the legislation it either increases the risk of no deal or a “people v parliament” election. Can the government not just pull the legislation at that point?
The safest route for them is to try and get a second referendum amendment through. But again I think there’s potential problems with that.
Nice try, but both the timing of an election and the prospect of No Deal is still in Parliament's hands, not the government's.
Labour have nothing to lose by trying to bolt on a whole load of things to the Withdrawal Agreement (customs union, workers' rights, no exit from the transition without a full agreement, etc.). The one question mark for me is I'm not sure those amendments are going to get majority support - I can just see the Lib Dems and a few ultra-Remain Labour MPs playing silly buggers again with their "I'm not voting for a customs union because that's Brexit and any form of Brexit is the spawn of the devil" nonsense.
If I was in Labour’s shoes I’d go for lots of political but meaningless amendments (eg amending the WA to stop the government privatising the NHS.)
This has the benefit of:
1. Wasting time that wreckers might otherwise use 2. Proving lots of nice election ammo (in this case the government voted against protecting the NHS)
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
What a disgusting racist thing to say. This is a classic example of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Labour MPs under a Tory government are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the Jews in Nazi Germany. Six million of us were deliberately slaughtered in the biggest genocide in human history. You are a stain of a human being.
Don't be so stupid! Those Labour MPs would be enhancing the agenda and electoral interests of a thoroughly evil man who will bring misery to those they claim to represent.
I am not being stupid. I am someone who has had three grandparents die in the Holocaust. You are a disgusting human being using the suffering of my people to make banal political points for partisan advantage.
And of course you are just the type to turn around and claim there is no anti-Semitism in Corbynism.
Your Grandparents died in the Holocaust due to the right wing nutter in charge
Amber Rudd's support for the deal, notwithstanding her voting with Letwin, in a direct conversation with Boris does give rise to the likelyhood of the whip being restored and her standing in the next GE in a safe seat
For those who bet, Amber for next conservative leader could be a good call
No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit.
Do you get pleasure in writing that kind of insult
Scatological hyperbole is a consistent theme of @Dura_Ace ‘s writing. A constant diet of it would be tiring, but he is fairly sparing in its deployment
Maybe so, but I fear he is right. The Tory Party is becoming more and more extreme.
If either one of the two main parties could rid themselves of their extremists then the election would be theirs for the taking. As long as they are moving further from the centre, I will vote tactically.
In this scenario, a vote for Corbyn may be justified. Whilst he and Labour are distasteful, they have less chance of power than the Fool and his entourage in Downing St.
At this point "Getting the Tories Out" may no longer be a Labour battle cry, it may be essential for the well-being of the country,
What precisely has led you to the conclusion that the Tories are getting “more and more extreme”?
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
What a disgusting racist thing to say. This is a classic example of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Labour MPs under a Tory government are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the Jews in Nazi Germany. Six million of us were deliberately slaughtered in the biggest genocide in human history. You are a stain of a human being.
Don't be so stupid! Those Labour MPs would be enhancing the agenda and electoral interests of a thoroughly evil man who will bring misery to those they claim to represent.
Your comparison to the Hitler Enabling Act is offensive.
JRM was a damn fool taking his son into such a situation. Dragged the poor lad to a Chequers meeting, too, IIRC.
Victim blaming?
I suppose women who wear short skirts are damn fools too?
I think the better a apology would be a policeman taking his child on riot control duty.
It would not be a better analogy at all. Surely you can see the difference.
It’s not perfect but it’s better than Mr Thompson’s
Rioters are criminals and the police going on riot control duty are going to deal with criminals.
So you're suggesting that the marchers are rioters? That they are criminals?
Not all of them, and not rioting, but
*edit - sorry, section 4A
That’s fair (and I applaud the insertion of “potentially”). One might think JRM irresponsible, even provocative, but that it no way removes him from the protection of the law. And nor should it.
Quite right. I bow to nobody in my dislike of JRM and everything he stands for, but anyone who threatens him with violence should have their collar felt. Even more so anyone who raises their fists to his poor benighted child.
Sadly a number of government ministers had to be escorted from Parliament by police yesterday. When there's a crowd in the six figures, it can be 99% peaceful but still have thousands of idiots involved.
What probably happened is that government people were identified by the crowd and a few idiots over-reacted, but thankfully the police intervened and no-one was hurt. It's a fine line between allowing people to protest the government and letting people get on with their business, we're not a democracy if people aren't allowed to shout at politicians in the street.
For all the criticism that gets levelled at the Met Police it appears they did a good job yesterday, with the event being mostly peaceful and good-natured.
Was there any threat of violence involved? Sounded more like booing and some verbal insults, not very different to the terms used by the PM and JRM about their opponents.
Obviously threats of violence are out of order, but heckling of politicians is part of democratic protest.
Given he had about 20 police around him I doubt very much they would be threatening violence or they would have been nicked pronto.
Why should JRM not take his son into that situation? That is victim blaming. This was supposed to be a lawful situation - why should JRM's son not be free to walk the street lawfully in what is meant to be a lawful situation?
I wonder if Mogg was using his son as a kind of human shield? - rather like when a terrorist takes an innocent child hostage as a deterrent against being 'stormed' by the armed police who have him cornered.
Reprehensible if so.
Realms of fantasy now, he took his son to what was a very unusual occasion that may not happen for another 40 years, people losing the plot now.
I did say to keep an eye on Skinner. He is a Eurosceptic who wants to leave the EU but viscerally hates Tories and could spontaneously combust if he walked into an AYE lobby with a Tory government.
To repeat a view I recently expressed, Labour MPs who vote in favour of Johnson's Deal will find themselves behaving in the same way as a Jewish member of the Reichstag voting for Hitler's Enabling Act in March 1933. I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
What a disgusting racist thing to say. This is a classic example of rampant anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. Labour MPs under a Tory government are ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE the Jews in Nazi Germany. Six million of us were deliberately slaughtered in the biggest genocide in human history. You are a stain of a human being.
Justin is another who seems to have lost all sense of reason recently.
Dura_Ace: "No chance. She is indeed ethically void enough to be tory leader but only hates foreigners from the commonwealth. She lacks the broad spectrum xenophobia in which the tories now desport themselves like scat enthusiasts in somebody else’s shit."
I`ve only just caught up with your comments. Were you joking?
Retaining the cultural identity of one`s country does not necessarily make one racist.
There is no such thing as a cultural identity of a country. Countries are in all cases made up of multiple cultures, many of which are partially shared with other countries.
You are saying there is not a Swiss culture?
I'm saying there are many cultures in Switzerland. I mean, there's at least four languages for a start, that ought to be a bit of a clue.
Comments
The customs union amendment remains cretinously stupid.
Huw dies it work in practice? We need the EU to negotiate a third deal, knowing that the U.K. has no choice but to accept?
There is also the above and a slowing German affects all the others.
On the whole, I am not keen on us having political prisoners. It is a rather Facist slippery slope of our right wingers.
https://twitter.com/ianjamesparsley/status/1185903930791858176?s=20
But in the referendum there has been a sovereign act.
What I meant was Parliament, having asked the source of its authority can’t just say “yebbut that was only advisory”. Because if it does then it is saying that the representative is more important than the Sovereign.
If either one of the two main parties could rid themselves of their extremists then the election would be theirs for the taking. As long as they are moving further from the centre, I will vote tactically.
In this scenario, a vote for Corbyn may be justified. Whilst he and Labour are distasteful, they have less chance of power than the Fool and his entourage in Downing St.
At this point "Getting the Tories Out" may no longer be a Labour battle cry, it may be essential for the well-being of the country,
I am minded to email a few of them to that effect.
(Although IMV referendums are rightly used for “rules of the game” type questions)
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/1185906008570372096?s=20
https://twitter.com/Tony_McNulty/status/1185907940496154624?s=20
NEW THREAD
The point is that Crown-in-Parliament is sovereign only if Parliament doesn’t refer the question to the source of its authority.
And of course you are just the type to turn around and claim there is no anti-Semitism in Corbynism.
It’s reasonable that an MP with a son interested in politics can take him to see a momentous day in history especially when Dad has a leading role
It’s reasonable that an MP should be able to leave parliament in safety
This has the benefit of:
1. Wasting time that wreckers might otherwise use
2. Proving lots of nice election ammo (in this case the government voted against protecting the NHS)