Aug 2019
9:28am, 29 Aug 2019
1,515 posts
|
Pothunter
IMO brexit is a side issue with regard to the prorogueing (?) of parliament. It sets a very dangerous precedent for any future government to simply suspend parliament in order push though potentially unpopular legislation. I agree with  G - the whole system needs an overhaul.
|
Aug 2019
9:47am, 29 Aug 2019
5,052 posts
|
jda
"And May's deal wasn't Brexit. Not with the backstop in it." That's a lie pure and simple. Any and all systems of non-membership are brexit (North Korea, Norway, Switzerland and Canada are all clearly not members of the EU), and all possible types of agreements were equally endorsed in the referendum. The official campaign said quite specifically and repeatedly that we would negotiate a deal before leaving, so leaving without a deal is the only brexit that was specifically excluded by the referendum campaign. |
Aug 2019
9:52am, 29 Aug 2019
15,060 posts
|
Chrisull
Interesting article in the Spectator here, Fraser Nelson of all people (a Johnson loyalist) sounding the first note of alarm of the tone of Johnson's government and its poor treatment of EU citizens thus far (and potentially after October 31st): spectator.co.uk "If the Prime Minister seeks to create a welcoming environment after Brexit, the Home Office needs to be brought to heel.".... and "One of the Churchill quotes he uses is that Tories should be ‘conservative in principle but liberal in sympathy’. A fine post-Brexit motto. It’s not too late for him to apply it." |
Aug 2019
9:56am, 29 Aug 2019
32,247 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
Stander, I think they've given every answer I would have (sorry, actually got work to do today. Very unusual!) 1. The original referendum was flawed. It was called by Cameron when it shouldn't have (we don't govern by referendum in this country), it was non-binding, but we were bound by it, it was badly worded (voters had no concept of the consequences), the campaigning was flawed (even illegal) etc. 2. Even if the referendum result was valid, as others have said, reality has shown that a "good deal" hasn't been possible to get through parliament. That's partly because there's no easy answer and partly because those doing the negotiating were a bit rubbish. But the upshot is that those charged with doing "Leave EU" haven't managed to find a way to do so in a way that isn't incredibly harmful to many (most) people. 3. In addition to having a referendum, we have a parliament. They're both "democracy". Closing down parliament, ignoring MPs who represent people in a professional and ongoing capacity is "worse" anti-democracy, than a delay (or even repeat or cancellation of) 1 and 2 above. All "in my opinion" blah, blah. And I accept that I'm speaking from a position of bias because I "don't like the answer". But I've had a go at justifying why I think what I think. And by the way, I would say the same for an outcome that I *did* want to see achieved e.g. Scottish Independence. If there was a referendum, non-binding, campaigned illegally, couldn't find a decent way to actually do it and at last gasp would require emergency, dodgy tactics to get it through, I'd say cancel that too. I'd even go further and say in addition to being legally binding a referendum on a constitutional matter (being part of a community, a union, a military pact etc.) should require a higher threshold of voter engagement - either a minimum turnout e.g. 80% or a higher majority e.g. 60% etc. By the way, peaceful protest, marching, lobbying one's MP, strikes are all lawful and democratic ways of people expressing their will. Always have been. Except in totalitarian states. Stander, mate, you keep on asking the difficult questions and making the difficult points. There aren't enough folk in here for balance at the moment!! G
|
|
Aug 2019
10:15am, 29 Aug 2019
15,061 posts
|
Chrisull
In answer to Stander's question, I still believe a second - confirmatory referendum - should be applied. There's plenty of other examples of 2 referendums being used on decisions of such magnitude being made. If remain loses again, even to a no deal option, then we have to put up and shut up. The mandate from the referendum has to be seen to be discharged. In theory a general election should have done this, but Corbyn himself gamed it as being both a leave and a remain party, such that leavers can claim both main parties stood on "leaving the EU" manifestos, while remainers can claim that they backed Corbyn expecting him/Labour to be tacitly remain, despite such rhetoric. The second ref should be made legally binding, the second one should be explicit on deals/no deals. The original mandate aka "will of the people" has been everything from a simple Common Market 2 and little change as possible, to deport all immigrants and trade on WTO terms forever, because a trade deal would dilute the purity of the ideal with compromise on things like immigration and fishing rights. The original mandate was not clear. Ireland had 2 referendums, and there are many, many other examples. If the public has not changed their mind, what is there to be scared of? Farage wouldn't have let it lie with the opposite result. Also May's deal was leaving the EU like it or not. That isn't up for debate, it's a black/white kind of question. The problem with the modern world is that it is impossible to be completely disconnected from the EU (and why would you want to be?), so any kind of exit is going to have some muddy water. |
Aug 2019
11:41am, 29 Aug 2019
2,319 posts
|
B Rubble
I agree Chrisull that a second referendum would not be undemocratic, especially as we now know far more about what the implications and outcomes of the different options will be. I suspect that the result may be similar, i.e. some form of exiting the EU, but if there are several options there is unlikely to be one that will attract the majority of people. i.e. the results will be similar to those returned by Parliament.
|
Aug 2019
12:10pm, 29 Aug 2019
39,751 posts
|
Diogenes
This is a couple of years old, but an interesting read on the referendum voting criteria, those it included and excluded. blogs.lse.ac.uk |
Aug 2019
12:30pm, 29 Aug 2019
3,518 posts
|
run free
Stander - I do like following what you say as it helps me to understand where some "leavers" are coming from. However I don't believe a "No Deal" was voted for in the referendum. Excluding the barmy claim "Be able to use 385 m/week on the NHS" the information that the Leave campaign told the people was also - Quick and easy trade deals with the EU and the rest of the world - Stop people from the EU coming to our country - am still trying to understand why this was an issue. - The UK would not have to pay the EU after it left .... and more mis-information that all has being pushed aside and converted to No Deal. |
|
Aug 2019
12:35pm, 29 Aug 2019
39,752 posts
|
Diogenes
blogs.lse.ac.uk "It might be politically expedient in the short term for a government to seek to avoid scrutiny, or to try to side-step the ‘the trial of discussion’ in parliament, for example, by proroguing parliament, or controlling the parliamentary time-table to ‘run out the clock’ before 31 October. Ultimately, in the longer term, such tactics may well come back to haunt such a government, by undermining the very ‘throughput’ legitimation claims upon which its authority is based. Any government that claims that parliament is seeking to ‘block’ Brexit, to frustrate the will of ‘the people’ as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and is, therefore, unrepresentative of ‘the people’, is challenging a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy. The assertion of a mythical single, unified collectivity of ‘the people’ runs counter to the essence of parliamentary democracy. In such a system MPs represent the ‘political nation’ (however constituted in any political period) and its many differences and divisions; and, in the specific case of Brexit, parliament registers the Richter magnitude of the post-referendum fault-lines now fragmenting families, constituencies, political parties and nations in the UK." |
Aug 2019
1:17pm, 29 Aug 2019
1,020 posts
|
Dochart
Ruth Davidson has just made an interesting comment on WatO. It seemed to hint that one reason for preroguing parliament was to allow the government to bring back the WA (or a version of it) for a fresh Commons vote, which would be allowable because it would be a new session of Parliament.
|
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Jan 2025
-
Economics
Jan 2025
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018