Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » A 16/1 tip to start off your Sunday

1235»

Comments

  • PendduPenddu Posts: 265

    It is funny how often you make these statements of fact which then turn out to be completely wrong.
    Parliament can revoke A50 on its own but probably doesnt want to. It would prefer a referendum to justify it.
    May can probably revoke A50 on her own but wont want to unless there is no alternative by 28 March.
  • HYUFD said:

    No, the Crown is not sovereign, we are not an absolute monarchy, the Crown in Parliament is sovereign as we are a constitutional monarchy. Therefore the Crown ultimately has to have a majority in Parliament to function and the Crown therefore always bows to the will of Parliament in the end, as has been the case since the Civil War and Glorious Revolution. The Queen will thus accept whatever has a majority in Parliament.

    Theresa May is NOT the Crown in any case, merely a Minister of the Crown, the Queen remains the Crown and the Queen remains the executive at the end of the day.
    The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.

    The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.

    If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
  • Penddu said:

    Parliament can revoke A50 on its own but probably doesnt want to. It would prefer a referendum to justify it.
    May can probably revoke A50 on her own but wont want to unless there is no alternative by 28 March.
    Both would want a smokescreen to try and pretend it wasn't there fault as they fear the consequences.
  • IanB2 said:

    In a rare moment of agreement it would certainly be welcome if HY were to exercise a little more judgement and caution and was somewhat less eager to always tell us all what is certain to happen, usually based on a single piece of the jigsaw.
    He is a great contributor to the site with interesting insight but a few IMHO may help his credibility rather than his absolute certainty, especially in interpreting the polls
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132

    You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.

    And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.
    Here I disagree. The Commission's remit is to decide the wording of the options that Parliament decides to put before the people. It is beyond their remit to consider what those options should be.

    And a boycott will be utterly pointless and have no impact on the result, or its legitimacy. Not least because it will most likely be called for by people who know they have lost already.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 38,518
    DavidL said:

    I really don't think it is as clear cut as that. The point of the Miller case was that a government cannot amend substantive law in the UK by treaty without the agreement of Parliament. Our substantive law now includes the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 passed by Parliament. In my opinion the logic of Miller is that the government cannot overrule an Act such as that without the express approval of Parliament.

    I am not saying that it is impossible to make a counter argument, I am simply saying this is not clear cut.
    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095

    You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.

    And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.
    Personally I would prefer a Remain v Leave, then if Leave Deal or No Deal choice but I think it is more likely Parliament votes for just Remain v Deal given less than 20% of MPs back No Deal even if at least a third of the voters do. I also doubt the Electoral Commission would overturn that question.

    A referendum may be boycotted by some No Dealers but Remainers and Dealers would vote and I would still expect a 60% turnout even if less than the 72% in 2016, however as there would be no turnout threshold that would not be relevant
  • StereotomyStereotomy Posts: 4,092

    He is a great contributor to the site with interesting insight but a few IMHO may help his credibility rather than his absolute certainty, especially in interpreting the polls
    Yes. That and acknowledgement and explanation when his predictions change
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,255
    edited January 2019
    nico67 said:

    There is no UK constitution. May has to adhere with the correct legal procedures . The Supreme Court dealt with the abrogation of rights . Those rights when triggering Article 50 would automatically fall away that’s why the government lost .

    The case defined what is allowed using the Royal Perogative , the disgraceful smearing of Gina Miller by some Leavers showed how clueless most of then where re the fundamental importance of her winning .

    If the government had won they could in future at the stroke of a pen change UK citizens rights . But the disgusting right wing media were too busy peddling lies and calling her everything under the sun .

    Miller did the right thing for the wrong reasons. She has made it clear she will use any and all means to stop Brexit. Parliamentary approval, however right it was and however much we should be thankful for it as a means of further reducing the power of prerogative, was merely one of those means. I am certain that if she could have thrown a spanner in the works in some other way she would not have hesitated to do so. She is not in any way someone to be admired even if she did something right by accident.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,022
    DavidL said:

    People are getting increasingly pissed off with this nonsense. Time and opportunity for a more sensible departure is running out.

    Got around to watching the Uncivil War last night. Brilliant performance from Cumberbatch but otherwise found it somewhat less than convincing although I did like Craig Oliver's focus group scene.
    I've still not seen that yet. I can't imagine it would be something they'd syndicate abroad, yet the official online source is of course geoblocked.
  • Sean_F said:

    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
    As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,189
    Sean_F said:

    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
    It's what brought the Uncivil War to mind. There is an increasing underlying anger that those focused on or based in London are just not getting. Again.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    edited January 2019

    The Queen won't get involved. Her authority is vested in the Prime Minister who has the Confidence of Parliament.

    The Bill authorising Article 50 invocation did not have the Queen invoke it, it gave the authority to the PM.

    If Parliament wants to replace the executive then they can do so.
    In a conflict between Parliament and the PM, the Queen will always back Parliament even if that requires Parliament to replace the PM.

    Though I expect if Parliament voted for a Remain v Deal EUref2 May would accept it and just prepare her Deal campaign, saying she was forced into it by Parliament, as was clear last week she is moving to let Parliament make the running now having failed to get her Deal through Parliament with a majority
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,355
    Sean_F said:

    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
    We are two camps.

    I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.
  • Not just Flint and Nandy but many more, indeed sufficient with conservative mps, to ensure a referendum has nowhere near enough mps to pass it, a position recently confirmed by Chuka Umunna

    Indeed David Lammy is so alarmed by this he is actively saying labour could split
    the laminator seems to have been perpetually alarmed since 2010 so i wouldn't read too much into that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    edited January 2019
    Sean_F said:

    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
    38% for No Deal is not astonishing, especially when Leave got 52%
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,189

    Matthew Parris, on R4 now.

    '... People blame MPs for failing to solve the insoluble ...'

    Quite.

    It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,538
    edited January 2019
    Kevin Mallory: The churchgoing patriot who spied for China

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46557096

    Fascinating story.

    From podcast I listened to last week, the arrests last week in Poland re Huawei was a similar thing. The Polish guy arrested was a former Polish security official.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,355
    Barnesian said:

    Is the Queen wearing an EU hat?

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-40356113

    It is rumoured that the Queen chooses her hats with care.
    It's a popular myth but the Queen was planning to be at Ascot that day and the colours reflect her racing stable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567
    HYUFD said:

    Yes, the Queen is sensible enough to know one of her ancestors, Charles 1st, was deposed when he tried to defy the will of Parliament and another, James IInd, was forced into exile.

    The Queen has no interest in trying to enforce an absolute monarchy, she knows the monarchy relies on its position as being a constitutional monarchy which respects the will of Parliament
    She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.

    Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615

    You forget that to actually get to the referendum the question has to be approved by the Electoral Commission and then will be subject to a series of legal challenges. The idea that Parliament just decides to ignore a third of the population and no one objects is for the fairies.

    And if it did get to the referendum on that basis then you can expect the whole thing to be fatally undermined by a boycott. The referendum might be legally accepted but the result would be rendered worthless as a means of settling the question.
    Richard, what is your view of what Edmund Burke left us with:
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,355
    Sean_F said:

    No. It can direct the government to ask the Council of Ministers for an extension.
    I somehow have my doubts that Gina Miller will fight to the death for an Act of Parliament to revoke Brexit.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,355

    As am I and it seems to be gaining popular support day by day
    Most Leavers think it's crying wolf again.

    I happen to think No Deal is when the wolf actually comes but it might take some months to emerge and it won't be manifested via food or medicine shortages (which are used because of their emotional traction) but in significant business and macroeconomic trading problems.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,884
    Sean_F said:

    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
    We can expect the level of support to drop significantly if No Deal actually happens.
  • dotsdots Posts: 615

    And how will Parliament force the EU to extend (remember they need the agreement of every one of those 27 countries) if there is no prospect of a deal being sorted in the medium term? Remember the EU have made very clear they will only accept an extension for a second referendum or a GE - though they will probably agree one to facilitate a deal if it has already been completely agreed before March 29th.

    Basically no matter what Grieve does, there will be a No Deal if something else is not there to replace it.
    Absolutely agree. But also how does the executive do it. British Government cant just extend it unilaterally.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 83,538
    edited January 2019
    In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

    A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

    I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567

    Most Leavers think it's crying wolf again.

    I happen to think No Deal is when the wolf actually comes but it might take some months to emerge and it won't be manifested via food or medicine shortages (which are used because of their emotional traction) but in significant business and macroeconomic trading problems.
    I'm anything but surprised. Well, actually, I'm surprised support for no Deal isn't higher given how increasingly furious Leavers round here are with both Parliament and Berlaymont.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,812
    edited January 2019

    No, but he couldn't do better if he sticks to Mrs May's red lines. The fact is Mrs May's deal is the best anyone could have hoped for with the assorted red lines in place. That said it is an unsatisfactory compromise on so many levels.

    It's interesting. May's vision of the Future Relationship, as described in the Political Declaration, is not compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement. Her goal is to be out of the Single Market and the Customs Union. This does not obviate the Irish Backstop and thus (absent a technological solution to the border) cannot be implemented. Labour's preference, on the other hand, effectively Norway Plus, is compatible with the Withdrawal Agreement. More than compatible, it is where the Withdrawal Agreement (via the Backstop) steers us to. So, the often heard line that Labour's Brexit is a unicorn and Mrs May is the realist? The truth is the very opposite of that.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    FF43 said:

    We can expect the level of support to drop significantly if No Deal actually happens.
    Small comfort.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    edited January 2019
    HYUFD said:

    In a conflict between Parliament and the PM, the Queen will always back Parliament even if that requires Parliament to replace the PM.

    Though I expect if Parliament voted for a Remain v Deal EUref2 May would accept it and just prepare her Deal campaign, saying she was forced into it by Parliament, as was clear last week she is moving to let Parliament make the running now having failed to get her Deal through Parliament with a majority
    No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?

    If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601

    In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

    A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

    I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

    Still massive.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 51,132
    Sean_F said:

    Yes. Even if the PM sends an e -mail to revoke A50, i don't see how that would reinstate The EC Act 1972 as the law of the land, now that it has been repealed.

    As an aside, I'm astonished by the level of support for no deal in last night's polls.
    It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
  • DavidL said:

    It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.
    Depending upon your definition of good ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567
    edited January 2019

    No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?
    Arguably 1963.

    Before that, 1931. Before that, 1911 (although both of those were her grandfather, not her).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 98,601
    IanB2 said:

    It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
    Well its a shame remainers and leavers are happy to risk it then.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567
    kle4 said:

    Well its a shame remainers and leavers are happy to risk it then.
    'Shame' is a rather weak word for what's happening right now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 54,559
    DavidL said:

    It is not insoluble. There is a perfectly good WA on the table.
    "perfectly good" is giving it a veneer of respectability it barely deserves. But yep - there is a means, right here, right now, to kill No Deal Brexit. Remainers are choosing not to take it.
  • G
    HYUFD said:

    38% for No Deal is not astonishing, especially when Leave got 52%
    It must astonish Bev who believes only 36% voted for Brexit
  • ChrisChris Posts: 11,920

    I accept your correction but of course the idea TM can just take it on her own to revoke A50 is unthinkable
    Yes, I agree. I think it's pretty unthinkable that MPs would take it on themselves to back revocation unless a referendum approved it.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,189
    ydoethur said:

    'Shame' is a rather weak word for what's happening right now.
    "disappointing"? "sub-optimal"?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,189

    Depending upon your definition of good ;)
    Good enough for government work, as the saying goes.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,313

    I've also been shocked by the level of bigotry on the ultra Remain side over recent weeks, which is more blatant and dark than I'd ever feared.

    I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095
    ydoethur said:

    She won't know anything of the kind, as neither of those is an ancestor of hers.

    Charles I was an ancestor of William, through Diana. I am not sure whether James II has any living descendants.
    The Queen's great great grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose great great grandfather was George 1st. George 1sts grandmother was Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia, whose brother was Charles 1st and whose nephew was James IInd
  • kle4 said:

    Still massive.
    I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
  • Chris said:

    Yes, I agree. I think it's pretty unthinkable that MPs would take it on themselves to back revocation unless a referendum approved it.
    It's increasingly clear that the MPs lack the backbone to take any decision on this without passing it back to a referendum.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095

    No you are categorically wrong. When was the last time the Queen got involved in a conflict between the PM and Parliament?

    If there is a dispute then Parliament has a way to resolve it without the Queen getting involved.
    No I am absolutely right.


    There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.


    If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567
    HYUFD said:

    The Queen's great great grandmother was Queen Victoria, whose great great grandfather was George 1st. George 1sts grandmother was Elizabeth Stuart of Bohemia, whose brother was Charles 1st and whose nephew was James IInd
    Exactly. She is descended from Charles' niece and James' cousin.

    William, by contrast, as a descendant of the Dukes of Grafton and Richmond, is a descendant of Charles I (and Charles II).
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 4,955
    IanB2 said:

    It's because no deal has become a totem for 'f**k the remainers'. They wont realise its true implications unless and until it actually comes to pass.
    No deal terrifes me but even I occasionally succumb to the urge to want to blow a raspberry at the "people's" vote mob. "People" already voted.

    When you spend two and a half years telling people they're a basket of racists and thickos for daring to disagree with you don't be surprised when they take the opportunity to stick their fingers up at you at every opportunity they can.

    It's why I'm fairly certain Leave would win a second referendum. The remain campaign would most likely be equal parts hectoring and gloating. Nothing cuts through like "they're still not listening, tell them again".

    Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and we end up with some sort of soft Brexity fudge at the 11th hour. But both sides are so polarised now it becomes harder and harder to see that happening.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 62,355
    viewcode said:

    I sincerely hope you don't include me in that.
    Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    I always find it amazing that they so many people to be behind on their subs. I mean most clubs if you don't pay your subs on time you are out.
    Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
  • Most clubs don’t want to claim they are the largest political party in Western Europe.
    I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567

    Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
    Which was doubly ironic given the individual in question voted Leave.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
    Personally I find the ‘they must have been too stupid to understand the question’ brigade pretty bigoted. Leave or remain seemed pretty straightforward to me. The most sinister suggestion was that we should age limit the right to vote as people would not be alive to see the consequences. What next - disenfranchisement of disabled and terminally ill?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567

    I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
    In a socialist paradise, Comrade, payment will not be important. You will be a member of the Party whether or not you pay your subs.

    Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329

    I wonder how long you can go without paying before you get the boot?
    I imagine if you are pure of heart and support the leader then a long time, if you are centre left blairite then probably you get the letter the day the DD bounces.
  • sealo0sealo0 Posts: 48
    Hi All

    Just seen this on another forum. This was back in August!!!

    THE UK SUBMITS SCHEDULES OF POST-BREXIT GOODS TARIFFS TO THE WTO – WHAT THAT MEANS

    https://trade-knowledge.net/commentary/the-uk-submits-schedules-of-post-brexit-goods-tariffs-to-the-wto-what-that-means/
  • NemtynakhtNemtynakht Posts: 2,329
    ydoethur said:

    In a socialist paradise, Comrade, payment will not be important. You will be a member of the Party whether or not you pay your subs.

    Which is just as well as we will all be skint and starving.
    But most people will be equally skint and starving so they will have solved the problem of relative poverty. I expect the UN to send a bid to say how well they have done.
  • NEW THREAD

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,677

    In recent months, however, it has lost up to 150,000 members, according to three sources within the party. It is estimated that up to 100,000 are not up to date with their subs and enrolment has slumped to around 385,000.

    A Labour insider said the downswing had already cost around £6m. “The party is skint,” the source said. “There have already been some recriminations about the amount spent on last summer’s botched music festival Labour Live.

    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/150-000-members-desert-labour-in-brexit-backlash-nvt8fgwfs

    I doubt it is Brexit, but perhaps the Magic Grandpa shtick is rubbing off a bit. And I doubt skint, as Uncle Len will obviously wang them some dosh if required.

    Like the official source, I'm sceptical of both the sources and the article, all of which are trying to make an argument. I only know about the membership in two constituencies, though very different ones - they are both marginally off the peak but the drop is 5-10%. The vast majority (80-90%) are now on direct debit so it's not plausible that 20% are behind with subs.

    That's not to say members are carefree - they feel unease about the Brexit position like everyone else, and are frustrated that Labour isn't clearer. But at this point they're not resigning in significant numbers.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 73,567
    edited January 2019

    But most people will be equally skint and starving so they will have solved the problem of relative poverty. I expect the UN to send a bid to say how well they have done.
    The Vietnamese foreign minister in 1976, Nguyen Duy Trinh, when pressed to come up with an achievement of his government, said tartly 'we have distributed poverty equally.'
  • HYUFD said:


    No I am absolutely right.


    There has never been a conflict in recent times between the PM and Parliament such that Parliament has consistently voted down what the PM intends as most PMs have had a majority in Parliament and have never refused to bow to the will of Parliament.


    If Parliament voted one way and the PM refused to implement it and in the unlikely event of the PM not then losing a VONC or resigning then the Queen would replace her chief minister with another one who could command the confidence of Parliament, as often happened in the 18th and early 19th centuries

    Sorry but this is rubbish. If the PM wins a VONC then by definition they command the confidence of Parliament. The fact they refuse to enact a particular vote when that vote has no legally binding force is immaterial as far as our current system is concerned.

    Now I would love to see the laws changed so that it is explicit that the PM has to obey the direction of Parliament. After all we vote for MPs not for the executive. But as it stands your claims are simply wrong.

    The problem we have at the moment is that Parliament wants certain actions to be taken but does not want to be seen to be responsible for them as they fear the backlash. Otherwise they would simply pass a VONC.
  • dots said:


    Richard, what is your view of what Edmund Burke left us with:
    Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

    I have commented on what Burke said often before. He was of course right but his was only half of the equation. The other half was that when he followed his maxim, he was then unceremoniously dumped by his constituents in Bristol at the next opportunity. If an MP is to decide they known better than their constituents then they have to be prepared to suffer the consequences.

    Moreover what we have far too much today is MPs acting as the representatives of their parties or of their own interests rather than of their electorate.

    In fact this whole episode has been quite refreshing for the number of MPs (on both sides of the debate) who have stood by their consciences rather than by their party.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 24,313

    Of course not. Cheering the death of the elderly, expressing unadulterated anger if a Remainer married a Leaver, openly calling Leavers Gammons and demanding the "salting of the slugs" are just some examples.
    Oh I see, thank you.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 127,095

    Sorry but this is rubbish. If the PM wins a VONC then by definition they command the confidence of Parliament. The fact they refuse to enact a particular vote when that vote has no legally binding force is immaterial as far as our current system is concerned.

    Now I would love to see the laws changed so that it is explicit that the PM has to obey the direction of Parliament. After all we vote for MPs not for the executive. But as it stands your claims are simply wrong.

    The problem we have at the moment is that Parliament wants certain actions to be taken but does not want to be seen to be responsible for them as they fear the backlash. Otherwise they would simply pass a VONC.
    If Parliament ie the House of Lords and the Commons voted for another EU referendum and the PM refused to implement it then the Government would likely lose a VONC anyway at that stage if not it is entirely possible than on a conflict between Parliament and PM on such a course of significance the monarch would replace the PM with someone more acceptable to Parliament
This discussion has been closed.