Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rods2]

The crass ridicule meted out by micron and barnier on sky TV this morning was astounding.
" We know what the UK doesn't want ,but not what it does want..."

Well here's a clue , everything you said Nein or Non to.

Yes they're not looking so smug this morning are they? 

And I bet your mates down the local aint so cock a hoop either! 

I think that those MPs that voted against the deal and who represent constituencies that voted to leave shoud probably start updating their CVs before the next election.

Not at all as no sane Lever wants May's BRINO which locks us into the EU forever through the NI backstop until we are forced to join the EUSSR in the 2028-30 timescale as planned by May and her grey suits, who see this as an opportunity to lock us into the EU forever with no escape without breaking this International Treaty. The Conservative women's website describes it here in detail. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/has-may-been-plotting-a-return-to-the-eu-all-along/ May's consistently giving the EU far more than they were asking for then starts to make perfect sense. This is probably why May's plan B ,C,D,E,,,,Z will basically be the same, where she will try to wear MPs down and get her deal. The elephant in the room is that we leave with No Deal on the 29th of March, unless this is passed before then and that date can't be changed without a law superseding it, which is a lengthy process, so there is probably not enough time as it would take a minimum of 40 Commons/Lords sitting days. Commons Motions cannot change this where statutes take precedence.

Karma is that the default No Deal and the leaving date were written into this law as a result of amendments made due to Gina Millers' Supreme Court victory. Thankyou Gina where you have made proper leaving much easier and more likely.

[LC0112G]

I  believe you have got this fundamentally wrong Nick. Parliament gave the people the power to take the decision whther to leave or remain. The people decided to leave. No if, buts or conditions.

Nope. Parliament only asked for the opinion of the people. It gave no power to the people. Parliament remained and remains sovereign. Parliament does not have to 'respect the will of the people'.

But the point is, when they gave the decision to the people, and enacted legislation on the result of that, they effectively suspended the representative element of Parliament in this matter.

Again no. The referendum was non binding on Parliament, and there is no constitutuional mechanism for Parliament to bind or suspend itself or a future parliament in any matter. Parliament can (and regularly does)  amend or repeal any legislation that has already been passed. Doesn't matter if that legislation was enacted last week or hundreds of years ago.

It might happen, but if it does, whats left of our democracy dies with it.
That is why I believe that if they make us vote again, everyone who believes in democracy, whether a leaver or remainer in the first vote, must vote for leave, to keep our democracy alive.

Again no. British democracy is based on Parliamentary sovereignty, not 'the will of the people'. The only say you or I get is who you vote for in your constituency in a General Election. Once you elect your MP he/she is free to vote any which way they desire. You can attempt to influence the way they vote, but you cannot compel them.

[Varche]

Not much point having people voting. Might as well go back to the days of the country being run by toffs and landowners. They would know what is best for the plebs.

The only small  problem with that is that the plebs are much better informed and organised than before.

I really can see it ending in bloodshed. Just need rash acts from disenfranchised nutters.

And still May plows on like a train crash with Corbyn ambulance chasing alongside.

Steve Baker for PM.

[LC0112G]

Not at all as no sane Lever wants May's BRINO which locks us into the EU forever through the NI backstop until we are forced to join the EUSSR in the 2028-30 timescale as planned by May and her grey suits, who see this as an opportunity to lock us into the EU forever with no escape without breaking this International Treaty. The Conservative women's website describes it here in detail. https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/has-may-been-plotting-a-return-to-the-eu-all-along/ May's consistently giving the EU far more than they were asking for then starts to make perfect sense. This is probably why May's plan B ,C,D,E,,,,Z will basically be the same, where she will try to wear MPs down and get her deal. The elephant in the room is that we leave with No Deal on the 29th of March, unless this is passed before then and that date can't be changed without a law superseding it, which is a lengthy process, so there is probably not enough time as it would take a minimum of 40 Commons/Lords sitting days. Commons Motions cannot change this where statutes take precedence.

Karma is that the default No Deal and the leaving date were written into this law as a result of amendments made due to Gina Millers' Supreme Court victory. Thankyou Gina where you have made proper leaving much easier and more likely.

Nope. Section 20 subsection 3 and 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 states :

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/20/enacted

(3) Subsection (4) applies if the day or time on or at which the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union is different from that specified in the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1).

(4)A Minister of the Crown may by regulations—

(a)amend the definition of “exit day” in subsection (1) to ensure that the day and time specified in the definition are the day and time that the Treaties are to cease to apply to the United Kingdom, and.

(b)amend subsection (2) in consequence of any such amendment.

So AIUI if Parliament decided to abandon BREXIT a Minister of the Crown can use the existing act to set "Exit Day" to sometime in the distant future (like year 2122) which should then give enough time to repeal the withdrawal act completely.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

LC0112G - We are talking at cross purposes. You are speaking in the strictly legal / Constitutional sense only. I am talking from the perspective of the promises they made to people, and the honesty and honour with which they claim to operate under.
So it may not have been legally binding, but it was most certainly binding in the more important sense that we were promised by our elected Govt. that they would implement the result.    At the recent election, both main parties stood on manifestos of not only leaving the EU, but the customs union and single market, so 80% (give or take) of the votes were cast on that basis.
To have a second referendum is to cancel the first one, which was the largest vote in the History of the country.
For me, that, to all intents and purposes kills what Democracy we have left.

[2boxerdogs]

LC0112G - We are talking at cross purposes. You are speaking in the strictly legal / Constitutional sense only. I am talking from the perspective of the promises they made to people, and the honesty and honour with which they claim to operate under.
So it may not have been legally binding, but it was most certainly binding in the more important sense that we were promised by our elected Govt. that they would implement the result.    At the recent election, both main parties stood on manifestos of not only leaving the EU, but the customs union and single market, so 80% (give or take) of the votes were cast on that basis.
To have a second referendum is to cancel the first one, which was the largest vote in the History of the country.
For me, that, to all intents and purposes kills what Democracy we have left.

. 


Entirely agree.

[aaronjb]

It is now far too late to get the kind of deal that pleases anyone.

It was too late for that the moment the referendum was held.
It's too late for that every time we have a General Election.
We should probably scrap the lot and go back to Crown Rule. As Varche says, they know best.

[Olympia5776]

LC0112G - We are talking at cross purposes. You are speaking in the strictly legal / Constitutional sense only. I am talking from the perspective of the promises they made to people, and the honesty and honour with which they claim to operate under.
So it may not have been legally binding, but it was most certainly binding in the more important sense that we were promised by our elected Govt. that they would implement the result.    At the recent election, both main parties stood on manifestos of not only leaving the EU, but the customs union and single market, so 80% (give or take) of the votes were cast on that basis.
To have a second referendum is to cancel the first one, which was the largest vote in the History of the country.
For me, that, to all intents and purposes kills what Democracy we have left.

. 


Entirely agree.

I think the fact that TM has repeatedly made the point that democracy was doomed if the outcome of the referendum was/is not delivered to the populace who voted out is indicative that morality outweighs Parliamentry Procedure .
I read the information given , in good faith , regarding the PP and the options available to sitting members. It strikes me that it was penned by a quil under yellow candle light when carrier pidgeon communications were state of the art .
This is a brave new world with observent ,demanding and intelligent voters armed with instantanious ,accurate ,historical and real time information on our privilaged past and present members of the house .
To ignore , or rebuke , them would be foolish and incredibly damaging to a career in politics and the party represented.

[LC0112G]

LC0112G - We are talking at cross purposes. You are speaking in the strictly legal / Constitutional sense only. I am talking from the perspective of the promises they made to people, and the honesty and honour with which they claim to operate under.

Those 'promises' were made by the Cameron Government. We have a new PM, another general election, and another Government. You are attempting to hold a different Govt to the promises of the previous one.

So it may not have been legally binding, but it was most certainly binding in the more important sense that we were promised by our elected Govt. that they would implement the result.    At the recent election, both main parties stood on manifestos of not only leaving the EU, but the customs union and single market, so 80% (give or take) of the votes were cast on that basis.

I disagree with that - it's the problem with our Party Politics. The idea that All Tory Voters (or MP's for that matter) agree with All Tory policies in the manifesto is bogus. Same for all other parties.  The Manifesto is simply a list of policies that, if elected, that parties government will attempt to implement. There is no compulsion for any particular MP to support their Party on every policy.

To have a second referendum is to cancel the first one, which was the largest vote in the History of the country.
For me, that, to all intents and purposes kills what Democracy we have left.

How can having another vote ever be anti democratic? Almost 3 years ago we were asked if we wanted to Remain or Leave. The Govt has spent the past 2.5 years attempting to negotiate a Leave deal, and they now have that deal, but hardly anyone supports it. If Parliament end up throwing the problem back to the people again, and the majority is for Hard Brexit or some version of "May's deal", then so be it. Yes Parliament could still ignore the result of any second referendum, but I don't think it would.

As things stand, either Parliament is going to decide on Hard Brexit, some form of Soft Brexit, or No Brexit. How is it undemocratic to allow the people to make that decision if Parliament cannot?

[Doctor Gollum]

It is now far too late to get the kind of deal that pleases anyone.

It was too late for that the moment the referendum was held.
It's too late for that every time we have a General Election.
We should probably scrap the lot and go back to Crown Rule. As Varche says, they know best.

They might be OUR representatives, but they are HER MAJESTY'S Government... 

Oh, wait, my bad, this is a democracy 

[aaronjb]

They might be OUR representatives, but they are HER MAJESTY'S Government... 

Oh, wait, my bad, this is a democracy 

  I'm surprised Queen Saxe-Coburg-Gotha hasn't told us to stop meddling and roll over for the EU

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

That is why I believe that if they make us vote again, everyone who believes in democracy, whether a leaver or remainer in the first vote, must vote for leave, to keep our democracy alive.

There shouldn't be another vote (no matter how cocked up the original was). But if there is, it should not include option to remain - the leave/remain vote has already happened...   ...so I've managed to change my mind whilst typing this into another referendum with:

Leave with Chequeresque (with mods, obviously) deal
Hard exit.

On the off chance that another deal comes along in the next few days - highly unlikely - include that.

I have repeatedly said this.

..........but the remain option will almost certainly be there.

[STEMO]

I'm having a hard brexit in my house after March 29th, I don't care what anyone else does. So there.
I won't allow any Eastern European's to do any work for me. The car will no longer go to their car wash either. I'm going to buy less food for a while and pretend there's a shortage. I'll drop a tenner down the grid on the way back from the shops, so it feels like everything's more expensive, and I just won't watch the news.
Sorted.

[STEMO]

Oh.....and I'm getting a new front door with the letterbox six inches off the floor. Ha.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

In order to get a consensus that can make it through parliament the PM may be forced to include a customs union..........which means her BRINO would become even more watery.