Skip to content

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mrs. May’s government suffers and second defeat in the Lords o

SystemSystem Posts: 12,684
edited March 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Mrs. May’s government suffers and second defeat in the Lords on the BREXIT bill

.@faisalislam has the latest as the Brexit Bill is defeated for a second time by the House of Lords https://t.co/Z5blfgWybW

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited March 2017
    This is a perfect double whammy from David Cameron: his EURA 2015 got us into this ungodly mess, and his FTPA 2010 closes off the most obvious method of resolving it. He is on course to overtake Blair as the most damaging PM since the war.

    Another thing that bloody tim turns out to have been right about.
  • Danny565Danny565 Posts: 8,091
    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    Doesn't that imply that the negotiators won't be seeking the best possible deal in the first instance? Also it could lead to the EU to give a really awful deal so that Parliament never approves Brexit.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    The best deal for the country is subjective, is it not? The Remainers say being members of the customs union and the single market are the best deal, indeed staying members of the EU is in the best interests of the country, according to them.

    This is nothing more than a proposed veto, we all know that.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    Mark Deen writing for Bloomberg says that AFP say that Le Pen has said she will resign if she fails to win popular backing for Frexit in a referendum.

    I don't believe this. Frexit isn't her policy.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,113
    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    Doesn't that imply that the negotiators won't be seeking the best possible deal in the first instance? Also it could lead to the EU to give a really awful deal so that Parliament never approves Brexit.
    Spot on, Rob. The Lords have no interest in any kind of deal - they want to wreck Brexit altogether.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    Third reading is tonight, when does it head back to the Commons? Couldn't see that on the Parliament website after a quick search.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,779
    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?
  • JasonJason Posts: 1,614
    SeanT said:

    Jason said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    The best deal for the country is subjective, is it not? The Remainers say being members of the customs union and the single market are the best deal, indeed staying members of the EU is in the best interests of the country, according to them.

    This is nothing more than a proposed veto, we all know that.
    Yep

    The deal will be what we agree with the EU. So what happens if the UK parliament says Nah, this is crap, go back and get a better deal and the EU says (as it will), Tough Titty, this is it,

    Does TMay then go back to the UK parliament which then demands she go back to the EU which then says Nah, this is it, so she has to go back to the UK blah blah

    Clearly this is what will happen. Unless, of course, MPs are actually asking for a way to thwart Brexit entirely, a way for them to quietly ask TMay to go back to the EU and say, OK, we stay.

    That is what a meaningful vote *really* means, which is why TMay will come under intense pressure to resist, and we could have a General Election if she can't impose her will on the Commons and Lords next week.
    Be interesting to see how many Labour MPs vote for these amendments in the Commons. We will know, once and for all, which side of the fence they sit. Then Mrs May can call the election and gently remind all of those Leave areas with Labour MPs which way they voted.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Jason said:

    RobD said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    Doesn't that imply that the negotiators won't be seeking the best possible deal in the first instance? Also it could lead to the EU to give a really awful deal so that Parliament never approves Brexit.
    Spot on, Rob. The Lords have no interest in any kind of deal - they want to wreck Brexit altogether.
    Hurrah ! That is why we have an unelected Upper House. They need not worry about small matters like elections.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 130,278
    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    One thing is for certain, Tory voters and members and MPs will demand immigration controls, May will not last long as PM and Tory leader if she abandons that commitment to stay in the single market. Most likely she agrees a job offer requirement and limited budget contributions to the EU for some bilateral agreements and if the EU refuse that she will just walk away and call a general election on going to WTO terms, if the EU agree she will try and get it through Parliament and then get the voters to endorse it in an election
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    RobD said:

    Third reading is tonight, when does it head back to the Commons? Couldn't see that on the Parliament website after a quick search.

    According to Sky it is expected to return to the Commons on Monday afternoon and potentially to the Lords on Monday evening: http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-bill-defeated-for-second-time-as-lords-call-for-meaningful-vote-10793889
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340
    The cry of the Augustinian Leavers:

    "Lords give me Parliamentary sovereignty but not yet."
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    AlastairMeeks said:

    The cry of the Augustinian Leavers:

    "Lords give me Parliamentary sovereignty but not yet."

    :D:D:D
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Parliament can't vote to halt gravity. Or make pi = 3 exactly.

    Nor can Parliament change the fact that if we don't get a deal then we cease to be members two years after Article 50 is invoked. Parliament already approved that when it ratified Lisbon and it will take 27 other nations agreement to change that.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,113
    AlastairMeeks said:

    The cry of the Augustinian Leavers:

    "Lords give me Parliamentary sovereignty but not yet."

    Full parliamentary sovereignty & scrutiny will be seen and done once the bill is passed for royal assent.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Cyan said:

    Mark Deen writing for Bloomberg says that AFP say that Le Pen has said she will resign if she fails to win popular backing for Frexit in a referendum.

    I don't believe this. Frexit isn't her policy.

    She has said she wants to negotiate leaving the Euro, and that if the EU won't agree, she'll hold a referendum on leaving the EU. If that went against her, she'd then stand down:

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/07/97001-20170307FILWWW00230-le-pen-quitterait-le-pouvoir-en-cas-de-non-a-un-referendum-sur-la-sortie-de-l-euro.php


  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    They were ALWAYS going to do that, pour l'encouragement des autres....
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,245
    RobD said:

    Third reading is tonight, when does it head back to the Commons? Couldn't see that on the Parliament website after a quick search.

    Sky say debate in HOC on monday
  • ParistondaParistonda Posts: 1,844
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Cyan said:

    Mark Deen writing for Bloomberg says that AFP say that Le Pen has said she will resign if she fails to win popular backing for Frexit in a referendum.

    I don't believe this. Frexit isn't her policy.

    She has said she wants to negotiate leaving the Euro, and that if the EU won't agree, she'll hold a referendum on leaving the EU. If that went against her, she'd then stand down:

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/07/97001-20170307FILWWW00230-le-pen-quitterait-le-pouvoir-en-cas-de-non-a-un-referendum-sur-la-sortie-de-l-euro.php


    Smart short term politics (makes her look like someone who values the 'sovereignty of the people' above all else), but risky for her long term goal, if it ever came to a vote, people would be tempted to give her a kicking and force her out (hence why Cameron tried to convince us that he wouldn't resign either way)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,275
    Philip_Thompson said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Parliament can't vote to halt gravity. Or make pi = 3 exactly.

    Nor can Parliament change the fact that if we don't get a deal then we cease to be members two years after Article 50 is invoked. Parliament already approved that when it ratified Lisbon and it will take 27 other nations agreement to change that.
    The Indiana state legislature did once actually make a law that the value of pi was 4.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    Won't that be the great repeal act?
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,822
    Paristonda said:

    Smart short term politics (makes her look like someone who values the 'sovereignty of the people' above all else), but risky for her long term goal, if it ever came to a vote, people would be tempted to give her a kicking and force her out (hence why Cameron tried to convince us that he wouldn't resign either way)

    True, but on the other hand she might think it would strengthen her hand in any negotiations over France leaving the Euro.

    Either way, it would make Brexit look like a teddy-bears' picnic.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Ishmael_Z said:


    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.

    Well... if we legislated that we were abandoning base 10 and moving to base 3.1415... then the value of Pi would be precisely 1.0 - set by legislation.

    I grant that integer counting could become tricky but perhaps the overall educational level of the population could be increased if we needed A-levels to count out our change

    :)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,275
    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    There seems, in all seriousness, to be a misunderstanding about the nature of this bill. It should only be a simple clause to exit the EU. Everything else that they are trying to tack on would be better served by motions or resolutions.

    We must therefore conclude either that their Lordships are very stupid and do not realise the implications of what they are doing, or they are supremely Machiavellian and for whatever reason are trying to force WTO rules on us.

    I don't think they will win prizes for intellect...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,275
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
    pi is irrational. The term "constant" here means nothing more than "it is an interesting number"
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,275
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Surely the Sovereign is Sovereign, my Lord? :wink:

    Again though, it does raise the issue of where ultimate power does or should lie - with Parliament or the people. At the moment legally it appears to be Parliament.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Isn't HM sovereign in our system?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    The journalist talking about the budget on C4 News is bloody annoying. Stupid presentation style which detracts terribly from what she is saying. Also for some reason could not refer to Hammond as the Chancellor but repeatedly called him 'Spreadsheet Phil'.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/solar-power-growth-worldwide-us-china-uk-europe

    "Globally there is now 305GW of solar power capacity, up from around 50GW in 2010 and virtually nothing at the turn of the millennium."

    Isn't the sun shining brightly ?
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,949
    edited March 2017
    Let's have a general election and give TM and three digit majority! :smiley:
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    edited March 2017
    Richard_Nabavi said:

    Cyan said:

    Mark Deen writing for Bloomberg says that AFP say that Le Pen has said she will resign if she fails to win popular backing for Frexit in a referendum.

    I don't believe this. Frexit isn't her policy.

    She has said she wants to negotiate leaving the Euro, and that if the EU won't agree, she'll hold a referendum on leaving the EU. If that went against her, she'd then stand down:

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/03/07/97001-20170307FILWWW00230-le-pen-quitterait-le-pouvoir-en-cas-de-non-a-un-referendum-sur-la-sortie-de-l-euro.php
    She has said she will hold a referendum on leaving or remaining regardless of whether negotiations on the French terms of membership succeed or not. It's not just leaving the euro she wants to negotiate, but also other issues of "sovereignty", including "territorial", i.e. immigration. She wants a Deal Much Bigger Than Dave's. This is all in her manifesto.

    Among the most important and scariest other points in it are nos. 2 and 5: lots more scope for referendums, or as they used to be called, plebiscites. Half a million signatures and there'll be a referendum. Want to ban the hijab? Or the Koran? Or bring back the death penalty?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,275
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
    pi is irrational. The term "constant" here means nothing more than "it is an interesting number"
    Ah I see. I had not understood that 'irrational number' is a technical term. I thought it meant 'nonsensical number'.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    Beverley_C said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    They were ALWAYS going to do that, pour l'encouragement des autres....
    Except now the Lords want it to be a take it or take it deal. That is the effect of their stupid amendment.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
    pi is irrational. The term "constant" here means nothing more than "it is an interesting number"
    Ah I see. I had not understood that 'irrational number' is a technical term. I thought it meant 'nonsensical number'.
    Ah, it just means you can't express it as a fraction.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament is only Sovereign within the borders of our country. It has absolutely no control over what the EU decides it wants to do.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited March 2017
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
    pi is irrational. The term "constant" here means nothing more than "it is an interesting number"
    Ah I see. I had not understood that 'irrational number' is a technical term. I thought it meant 'nonsensical number'.
    The mathematical meaning of irrational is that the number cannot be expressed as the ratio of two integers.

    One half (1 / 2 ) is the ratio of 1 to 2. It is a rational number. There are no numbers 'p' and 'q' that have a ratio that gives Pi. 22/7 is close and 355/113 is better but they are poor approximations
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 75,275
    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
    pi is irrational. The term "constant" here means nothing more than "it is an interesting number"
    Ah I see. I had not understood that 'irrational number' is a technical term. I thought it meant 'nonsensical number'.
    Ah, it just means you can't express it as a fraction.
    Thank you for the clarification, I am now with you again. I was once asked if I could teach A-level maths. Since I proved on the whiteboard that two and two make nine, the offer has not been repeated for some reason.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,898
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Beverley_C said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    They were ALWAYS going to do that, pour l'encouragement des autres....
    Except now the Lords want it to be a take it or take it deal. That is the effect of their stupid amendment.
    They are not making a great case for their incisive minds being used for the scrutiny of legislation.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    RobD said:

    ydoethur said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Philip_Thompson said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    FPT

    The Lords amendment is moronic.

    It says that

    "The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms."

    That decision is not in the purview of either the Government or Parliament. If we get to the end of the two year negotiating period and there is no deal then it is a decision of all 28 countries including the UK as to whether that negotiation continues or we leave. If any one of those countries decides they want us out then that is it. No matter what the Government or the Lords want we will be out.

    Correct. It is fairly close to establishing the value of π by legislation.
    Jinx.
    I was going to say "snap" - must be a generational thing.

    The Indiana Bill was really about squaring the circle, which aiui you can't do because pi is irrational; it therefore stipulated by implication that pi=3.2.
    A constant is irrational? That makes no sense.
    pi is irrational. The term "constant" here means nothing more than "it is an interesting number"
    Ah I see. I had not understood that 'irrational number' is a technical term. I thought it meant 'nonsensical number'.
    Ah, it just means you can't express it as a fraction.
    Thank you for the clarification, I am now with you again. I was once asked if I could teach A-level maths. Since I proved on the whiteboard that two and two make nine, the offer has not been repeated for some reason.
    Note that they didn't ask if you would be any good at it... :D I can't remember if we covered irrational numbers at A-level.. must have done.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    MarqueeMark said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Beverley_C said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    They were ALWAYS going to do that, pour l'encouragement des autres....
    Except now the Lords want it to be a take it or take it deal. That is the effect of their stupid amendment.
    They are not making a great case for their incisive minds being used for the scrutiny of legislation.
    It was always clear that there is barely enough time to arrange one poorly constructed deal. That is one of the reasons I expect Brexit to go badly. I cannot see how we avoid WTO quotas and tariffs because I do not think the deal we need can be arranged in the time we have.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    Cyan said:

    Half a million signatures and there'll be a referendum. Want to ban the hijab? Or the Koran? Or bring back the death penalty?

    And Dupont-Aignan has exactly the same policy.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    edited March 2017
    surbiton said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/solar-power-growth-worldwide-us-china-uk-europe

    "Globally there is now 305GW of solar power capacity, up from around 50GW in 2010 and virtually nothing at the turn of the millennium."

    Isn't the sun shining brightly ?

    Yes. Its output is approximately 40,000 trillion GW (4x10^26 W)
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    There seems, in all seriousness, to be a misunderstanding about the nature of this bill. It should only be a simple clause to exit the EU. Everything else that they are trying to tack on would be better served by motions or resolutions.

    We must therefore conclude either that their Lordships are very stupid and do not realise the implications of what they are doing, or they are supremely Machiavellian and for whatever reason are trying to force WTO rules on us.

    I don't think they will win prizes for intellect...
    They're trying to stymie the process without actually saying do.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Isn't HM sovereign in our system?
    The difference between being the Sovereign and being sovereign.

    Think Charles I and all that unseemly business.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    edited March 2017
    snip
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    RobD said:

    Note that they didn't ask if you would be any good at it... :D I can't remember if we covered irrational numbers at A-level.. must have done.

    I would hope that they did cover it at A level as it is very basic mathematics
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament is only Sovereign within the borders of our country. It has absolutely no control over what the EU decides it wants to do.
    That wasn't the point @Charles and I were discussing.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    JackW said:

    RobD said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Isn't HM sovereign in our system?
    The difference between being the Sovereign and being sovereign.

    Think Charles I and all that unseemly business.
    Yes, not proposing HM actually get involved, just wondered from a purely legal standpoint.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    Beverley_C said:

    RobD said:

    Note that they didn't ask if you would be any good at it... :D I can't remember if we covered irrational numbers at A-level.. must have done.

    I would hope that they did cover it at A level as it is very basic mathematics
    Hm, I wouldn't call irrational numbers very basic mathematics!
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    Beverley_C said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Beverley_C said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    They were ALWAYS going to do that, pour l'encouragement des autres....
    Except now the Lords want it to be a take it or take it deal. That is the effect of their stupid amendment.
    They are not making a great case for their incisive minds being used for the scrutiny of legislation.
    It was always clear that there is barely enough time to arrange one poorly constructed deal. That is one of the reasons I expect Brexit to go badly. I cannot see how we avoid WTO quotas and tariffs because I do not think the deal we need can be arranged in the time we have.
    The Lords amendment makes that both more likely and more painful.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 81,167
    Does this not make a snap election significantly more likely ?
    A lot easier for remainer tories to rebel on this than the A50 vote ?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    It should heed the example of Canute who set out to prove to his advisors that Sovereignty has its limits and they rest on the shores of our Kingdom.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    GIN1138 said:

    Let's have a general election and give TM and three digit majority! :smiley:

    Or the electorate give her a two digit signal .... :smile:
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    edited March 2017
    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Wonder if you would say the same had the referendum gone the other way... :p
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Beverley_C said:

    surbiton said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/solar-power-growth-worldwide-us-china-uk-europe

    "Globally there is now 305GW of solar power capacity, up from around 50GW in 2010 and virtually nothing at the turn of the millennium."

    Isn't the sun shining brightly ?

    Yes. Its output is approximately 40,000 trillion GW (4x10^26 W)
    But we are only interested in the amount that reaches the Earth and , maybe, the Moon. That will still be quite a lot.
  • Hertsmere_PubgoerHertsmere_Pubgoer Posts: 3,476
    Sean_F said:

    ydoethur said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    There seems, in all seriousness, to be a misunderstanding about the nature of this bill. It should only be a simple clause to exit the EU. Everything else that they are trying to tack on would be better served by motions or resolutions.

    We must therefore conclude either that their Lordships are very stupid and do not realise the implications of what they are doing, or they are supremely Machiavellian and for whatever reason are trying to force WTO rules on us.

    I don't think they will win prizes for intellect...
    They're trying to stymie the process without actually saying do.
    It reminds me of a Blackadder quote.
    About as much talent for disguising it as a giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a polar bears only golf club.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    edited March 2017
    JackW said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament is only Sovereign within the borders of our country. It has absolutely no control over what the EU decides it wants to do.
    That wasn't the point @Charles and I were discussing.
    It is the only point that matters here, at least as far as the 4th clause of the amendment is concerned.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Beverley_C said:

    MarqueeMark said:

    Richard_Tyndall said:

    Beverley_C said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Danny565 said:

    FPT:-

    I think/hope it means that, if Parliament vetoes the deal May comes back with, she will be forced to go back to the table and negotiate a better one, rather than it defaulting to "no deal" and us crashing out.

    I really can't see what the problem is. Surely no-one actually thinks Britain coming out on WTO terms, without any kind of deal with the EU, would be a good option? May being told her first deal isn't good enough and that she has to go back and do it again would mean she would lose some face personally, but why should avoiding her losing face take priority over getting the best deal for the country?

    I think the problem is that the EU will tell us that when we go back to the table, we can either take or leave the deal that has been offered.
    They were ALWAYS going to do that, pour l'encouragement des autres....
    Except now the Lords want it to be a take it or take it deal. That is the effect of their stupid amendment.
    They are not making a great case for their incisive minds being used for the scrutiny of legislation.
    It was always clear that there is barely enough time to arrange one poorly constructed deal. That is one of the reasons I expect Brexit to go badly. I cannot see how we avoid WTO quotas and tariffs because I do not think the deal we need can be arranged in the time we have.
    The Lords amendment makes that both more likely and more painful.
    I am not disputing that.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,709
    surbiton said:

    Beverley_C said:

    surbiton said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/07/solar-power-growth-worldwide-us-china-uk-europe

    "Globally there is now 305GW of solar power capacity, up from around 50GW in 2010 and virtually nothing at the turn of the millennium."

    Isn't the sun shining brightly ?

    Yes. Its output is approximately 40,000 trillion GW (4x10^26 W)
    But we are only interested in the amount that reaches the Earth and , maybe, the Moon. That will still be quite a lot.
    Where's you ambition... we could build a Dyson sphere and capture it all.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    When people refer to 'elites' the idea of a 'House of Lords' fits the bill perfectly.

    They are writing the chamber's suicide note.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    They referred the question to the people who instructed them to exit the EU. It is up to the Executive to Execute that instruction (the clue is in the name).

    Certain members of Parliament are seeking to overurn the decision of the people. Since their authority descended from the people that is presumtuous in the extreme.
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    I don't subscribe to that view although with the exception of nation forming, as with SINDY, I do not approve of referendums.
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Nigelb said:

    Does this not make a snap election significantly more likely ?
    A lot easier for remainer tories to rebel on this than the A50 vote ?

    Maybe Theresa May will see how the Tories do at the local elections before deciding whether to hold an election this year as Mrs Thatcher did in the 1980s.
  • TomsToms Posts: 2,478
    RobD said:

    snip

    snap
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Charles said:

    They referred the question to the people who instructed them to exit the EU. It is up to the Executive to Execute that instruction (the clue is in the name).

    Certain members of Parliament are seeking to overurn the decision of the people. Since their authority descended from the people that is presumtuous in the extreme.

    Since their authority descends from the people it has equal weight. If the people don't like it, they can throw them out.

    It's perplexing why Leavers feel such a sense of urgency about getting out of the EU. They do not fear some coming European war or something of equal gravity. No, it's because they know that popular consent for Brexit will not last, and they want to make sure it is a done deal before the people can speak again.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,333
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    They referred the question to the people who instructed them to exit the EU. It is up to the Executive to Execute that instruction (the clue is in the name).

    Certain members of Parliament are seeking to overurn the decision of the people. Since their authority descended from the people that is presumtuous in the extreme.

    Since their authority descends from the people it has equal weight. If the people don't like it, they can throw them out.

    It's perplexing why Leavers feel such a sense of urgency about getting out of the EU. They do not fear some coming European war or something of equal gravity. No, it's because they know that popular consent for Brexit will not last, and they want to make sure it is a done deal before the people can speak again.
    No. It is because silly attitudes and posts like this will end when we leave.
  • Beverley_CBeverley_C Posts: 6,256
    RobD said:

    Beverley_C said:

    RobD said:

    Note that they didn't ask if you would be any good at it... :D I can't remember if we covered irrational numbers at A-level.. must have done.

    I would hope that they did cover it at A level as it is very basic mathematics
    Hm, I wouldn't call irrational numbers very basic mathematics!
    You should have been an ancient Greek - they hated irrationals

  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,543
    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Yet, referenda are the norm in plenty of democratic countries.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Mortimer said:

    No. It is because silly attitudes and posts like this will end when we leave.

    Wishful thinking. :)
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    Sean_F said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Yet, referenda are the norm in plenty of democratic countries.
    One person, one vote.

    What could be fairer?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,333
    AndyJS said:

    Nigelb said:

    Does this not make a snap election significantly more likely ?
    A lot easier for remainer tories to rebel on this than the A50 vote ?

    Maybe Theresa May will see how the Tories do at the local elections before deciding whether to hold an election this year as Mrs Thatcher did in the 1980s.
    Perhaps she'll have a meeting with MarkSenior to see what he makes of it all...
  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    They referred the question to the people who instructed them to exit the EU. It is up to the Executive to Execute that instruction (the clue is in the name).

    Certain members of Parliament are seeking to overurn the decision of the people. Since their authority descended from the people that is presumtuous in the extreme.
    Incorrect.

    The referendum was advisory and did not bind Parliament in theory, albeit that is the practical effect of the vote. However MP's are not delegates of their electorate and may chose to ignore (at their peril) the views of their voters.

    The executive (HMG) serves at the will of the Sovereign, it having the confidence of the House of Commons which it why we note parliamentary sovereignty and not executive sovereignty.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,415
    May needs to do the following:

    Abolish the House of Lords.

    Give herself the power to issue Trump-like executive orders that are completely impervious to legal challenge.

    Make the advocacy of anything other than the hardest of Brexits a hate crime.

    Is there anyone who'd object who couldn't be dismissed as a bitter liberal? A touch drastic perhaps, but it would make Theresa's life a lot easier.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,584
    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Funny, Switzerland is not renowned as a land of dictators and demagogues. It strikes me that the only people who object to referendums are those who don't like people to have the chance to have their say.
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    chestnut said:

    Sean_F said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Yet, referenda are the norm in plenty of democratic countries.
    One person, one vote.

    What could be fairer?
    That is no argument for having a free-for-all with referendums.
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Sean_F said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Yet, referenda are the norm in plenty of democratic countries.
    Referenda are fine if they are part of a constitutional system like in Switzerland. Ours is strapped-on one when we have an inconvenient problem. Harold Wilson needed to silence half of the Labour Party. Cameron expected to do likewise. The Liberals were given a scrap for AV. Scotland's was the more the serious one.

    The Brexit one has become a dog's breakfast. It is perfectly possible for the people:

    1. to want to leave the EU, but

    2. not like the terms of leaving negotiated by the government.

    It appears they have no choice in the matter then.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,314
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Funny, Switzerland is not renowned as a land of dictators and demagogues. It strikes me that the only people who object to referendums are those who don't like people to have the chance to have their say.
    Switzerland is mature enough that when the result of a referendum is frustrated, for whatever reason, those in power don't get called 'enemies of the people'.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Stark_Dawning said:

    Make the advocacy of anything other than the hardest of Brexits a hate crime.

    Is SeanT going to be minister of propaganda?
  • surbitonsurbiton Posts: 13,549
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Funny, Switzerland is not renowned as a land of dictators and demagogues. It strikes me that the only people who object to referendums are those who don't like people to have the chance to have their say.
    But Swiss people actually take decisions. Like tax rate etc.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    Will the Arsenal bet pay out?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    They referred the question to the people who instructed them to exit the EU. It is up to the Executive to Execute that instruction (the clue is in the name).

    Certain members of Parliament are seeking to overurn the decision of the people. Since their authority descended from the people that is presumtuous in the extreme.

    Since their authority descends from the people it has equal weight. If the people don't like it, they can throw them out.

    It's perplexing why Leavers feel such a sense of urgency about getting out of the EU. They do not fear some coming European war or something of equal gravity. No, it's because they know that popular consent for Brexit will not last, and they want to make sure it is a done deal before the people can speak again.
    The people have delegated their authority so Parliament is normally sovereign.

    But Parliament elected to seek instruction and so surrendered their rights.

  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    edited March 2017
    surbiton said:

    Sean_F said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Yet, referenda are the norm in plenty of democratic countries.
    Referenda are fine if they are part of a constitutional system like in Switzerland. Ours is strapped-on one when we have an inconvenient problem. Harold Wilson needed to silence half of the Labour Party. Cameron expected to do likewise. The Liberals were given a scrap for AV. Scotland's was the more the serious one.

    The Brexit one has become a dog's breakfast. It is perfectly possible for the people:

    1. to want to leave the EU, but

    2. not like the terms of leaving negotiated by the government.

    It appears they have no choice in the matter then.

    They can vote for a party that pledges a referendum on rejoining at the general election after.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,779
    *Buffs nails*

    My 99/1 tip is now trading at 37/1
  • CyanCyan Posts: 1,262
    surbiton said:

    Referenda are fine if they are part of a constitutional system like in Switzerland.

    The 2009 Swiss one on banning new minarets was a disgrace. Expect more of the same across Europe.

  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 5,344
    Richard_Tyndall said:

    williamglenn said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    JackW said:

    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    But hooray for Parliamentary sovereignty?

    Actually no. Parliamentary sovereignty has never extended into Treaty making which is rightly the purview of the Executive
    And Executive privilege does not extend into lawmaking, which Brexit is.
    There is a vote triggering Article 50 which is right. Parliament is now overreaching by trying to tie the executive's hands
    Parliament is sovereign not the executive. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.
    Parliament doesn't negotiate treaties.
    Parliament may do as it pleases and should it wish instruct the government as it sees fit.
    That's why referendums have rightly been called “a device of dictators and demagogues” since they seek to bypass constitutional government.
    Funny, Switzerland is not renowned as a land of dictators and demagogues. It strikes me that the only people who object to referendums are those who don't like people to have the chance to have their say.
    500 years of peace, and all they've been able to come up with is the cuckoo clock ...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,391
    Charles said:

    williamglenn said:

    Charles said:

    They referred the question to the people who instructed them to exit the EU. It is up to the Executive to Execute that instruction (the clue is in the name).

    Certain members of Parliament are seeking to overurn the decision of the people. Since their authority descended from the people that is presumtuous in the extreme.

    Since their authority descends from the people it has equal weight. If the people don't like it, they can throw them out.

    It's perplexing why Leavers feel such a sense of urgency about getting out of the EU. They do not fear some coming European war or something of equal gravity. No, it's because they know that popular consent for Brexit will not last, and they want to make sure it is a done deal before the people can speak again.
    The people have delegated their authority so Parliament is normally sovereign.

    But Parliament elected to seek instruction and so surrendered their rights.

    No they didn't, or the act would have said so (it may have been the intent, but the act still didn't say so). They are, quite sensibly, deferring to the public's wishes given the reality of the referendum, but that is not, I would argue, the same as 'surrendering' their rights. There is a difference between choosing not to exercise a right and surrendering it.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025