- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
I’m not going into bat for them - as I said above it’s not a route I advocate.
I’m criticising inflammatory, emotive and imprecise language from @AlastairMeeks
(I spent 3 happy years studying constitutional government with Vernon Bogdanor...)
Has Boris ever expressed a desire to 'drain the swamp'? With the appointment of Toby Young, for example, I'd have thought that the swamp was right up Boris and his family's street.
Nothing to see here, just one of the main political parties’ memberships being prepared to suspend democracy21
.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
The problem has always been that the referendum mandated leaving the EU but did not provide firm guidance on how that should happen. People voted for different forms of Brexit, and we know from the polling that some people who voted for Brexit and wanted a particular form of Brexit would rather Remain than leave with the wrong form of Brexit. So the argument "people voted Leave so we must leave like this" doesn't hold. Moreover, neither Theresa May nor most Brexiteers have at any time, except perhaps half-heartedly when it was too late, tried to forge a national consensus on the issue. As a result, nobody in parliament is under any moral, legal or political obligation to sign up to a form of Brexit that they view as worse than remaining. This is true of the DUP, the ERG and the Labour Party. It must be frustrating for Leavers, but it is largely their own fault. Sorry (not sorry).
The only thing we know people voted for is to Leave. Everything else is up for grabs.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
But we have a constitution which says parliament > referenda
Who gets to decide to change that? If it is just the PM and the Queen with no consent from parliament or the public that is a coup.
I think the problem is that the results of previous referenda on devolution etc have been dutifully followed by Parliament with good grace and haste.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
But we have a constitution which says parliament > referenda
Who gets to decide to change that? If it is just the PM and the Queen with no consent from parliament or the public that is a coup.
The constitution doesn’t say that. It’s an evolving group of conventions.
Parliament asked the people to vote and promised to implement the outcome. Having asked the people they have passed their authority on this matter to the voters.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
Despite the referendum formally having been advisory only, it is clearly better for legitimacy if the public endorse an alternative path. Once that is done I doubt we'll be seeing any more referendums in our lifetime.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
If you think you can take how MPs voted in one scenario and drop it into an entirely different one, you don't understand politics.
That ought to be obvious from the three votes on the same deal that have already been held, with lots of MPs changing their vote - not because the proposition had changed, but because the political climate had.
A united Tory party behind the deal would have got enough opposition support to get through at the first attempt. Instead, the ERG trashed their own side's Brexit.
I agree with that assessment. The idea that the interminable internecine warfare didn't do more to kill the deal (with both parliament and public) than anything in the actual terms themselves is absurd.
I have watched Damian Green at sparsely attended Tory conference fringe meetings, together with Anna Soubry, nobly upholding the pro-European cause with great eloquence and passion. Soubry honourably broke with her party, but Green has gone grovelling to Johnson on television, oozing with unseemly sycophancy.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Nope.
Brexit required Brexiters to get in behind it. The ERG were the pivotal actor to stop it happening. They provided cover for Labour Leavers *and* the DUP, in a way those two other groups could not have.
The DUP needed no cover. If anything they gave cover to the ERG.
So the absurd suggestion then is that Labour opposed it because of the ERG.
In relation to the 20 or 30 Labour leavers, it has been widely commented upon. The deal would have gone through at first attempt had the ERG not trashed it, and quite possibly Brexit with it.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
A united Tory party behind the deal would have got enough opposition support to get through at the first attempt. Instead, the ERG trashed their own side's Brexit.
I agree with that assessment. The idea that the interminable internecine warfare didn't do more to kill the deal (with both parliament and public) than anything in the actual terms themselves is absurd.
The internal squabbling came from the fact the PM was crap .
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?
So if Theresa May had all the MPs rounded up and thrown in prison and declared herself Supreme Leader, that wouldn't be a suspension of democracy because we didn't have any elections planned?
I think that would be different, I can't recall any precedence for that. But I can recall precedence for proroguing Parliament. In fact a proroguation is fairly standard. I can't recall a single 5 year Parliamentary term in my lifetime without Parliament being prorogued at least once.
The difference here is the timing and the consequences. But the consequences are literally because of Parliament not the referendum.
Parliament passed a law to invoke Article 50. Parliament passed a law to take us out of the EU after Article 50 was invoked. Parliament passed a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October.
If we leave on 31 October it will solely be because of the laws Parliament has passed, not executive action. Proroguing Parliament doesn't set any new laws it just keeps the existing laws Parliament already voted for in place until they sit again.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome.
The problem has always been that the referendum mandated leaving the EU but did not provide firm guidance on how that should happen. People voted for different forms of Brexit, and we know from the polling that some people who voted for Brexit and wanted a particular form of Brexit would rather Remain than leave with the wrong form of Brexit. So the argument "people voted Leave so we must leave like this" doesn't hold. Moreover, neither Theresa May nor most Brexiteers have at any time, except perhaps half-heartedly when it was too late, tried to forge a national consensus on the issue. As a result, nobody in parliament is under any moral, legal or political obligation to sign up to a form of Brexit that they view as worse than remaining. This is true of the DUP, the ERG and the Labour Party. It must be frustrating for Leavers, but it is largely their own fault. Sorry (not sorry).
The issue is simple.
What some people might have wanted vs what other people might have wanted vs what was or was not on the ballot paper vs hard/soft/poached matters not a jot. In 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU and we have not left the EU yet.
Now, parliament for very good reasons imo has not agreed on a way to leave. So that leaves an impasse and the only way out of it is either pass the WA or have a 2nd referendum. Parliament seems determined not to do the first of these so that leaves the second.
"Diehard Remainer" as I am not, I am certainly a remainer, albeit we all live for the moment in a Leave country and I think the vast majority of remainers have reconciled themselves to this - I have. So I say this very tentatively but if Boris became PM and he suspended parliament under some legal method and that lead to our leaving the EU on October 31st, then that would be enacting the democratic will of the people.
I don't for a moment think he will get away with it, plus Rory the Tory will set up shop in the coffee shop opposite, but we voted to leave and we haven't left.
My father was posted at the DC embassy in the early-mid 80s and he always maintained that anything else after is a step down and a big one (he got sent to Zaire after DC - haha). The ambassador's residence on Massachusetts Ave. alone makes it a glittering prize.
The suggestion was slightly tongue in cheek (perhaps we could swap the two ambassadors around... ?), but China is of rather greater global significance than was the case in the 80s.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
A united Tory party behind the deal would have got enough opposition support to get through at the first attempt. Instead, the ERG trashed their own side's Brexit.
I agree with that assessment. The idea that the interminable internecine warfare didn't do more to kill the deal (with both parliament and public) than anything in the actual terms themselves is absurd.
The internal squabbling came from the fact the PM was crap .
My father was posted at the DC embassy in the early-mid 80s and he always maintained that anything else after is a step down and a big one (he got sent to Zaire after DC - haha). The ambassador's residence on Massachusetts Ave. alone makes it a glittering prize.
The suggestion was slightly tongue in cheek (perhaps we could swap the two ambassadors around... ?), but China is of rather greater global significance than was the case in the 80s.
Disagree. It was perfectly obvious in the '80s, really from 1978 onwards, that China was inevitably going to be a huge global player within a generation or two.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome.
The problem has always been that the referendum mandated leaving the EU but did not provide firm guidance on how that should happen. People voted for different forms of Brexit, and we know from the polling that some people who voted for Brexit and wanted a particular form of Brexit would rather Remain than leave with the wrong form of Brexit. So the argument "people voted Leave so we must leave like this" doesn't hold. Moreover, neither Theresa May nor most Brexiteers have at any time, except perhaps half-heartedly when it was too late, tried to forge a national consensus on the issue. As a result, nobody in parliament is under any moral, legal or political obligation to sign up to a form of Brexit that they view as worse than remaining. This is true of the DUP, the ERG and the Labour Party. It must be frustrating for Leavers, but it is largely their own fault. Sorry (not sorry).
The issue is simple.
What some people might have wanted vs what other people might have wanted vs what was or was not on the ballot paper vs hard/soft/poached matters not a jot. In 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU and we have not left the EU yet.
Now, parliament for very good reasons imo has not agreed on a way to leave. So that leaves an impasse and the only way out of it is either pass the WA or have a 2nd referendum. Parliament seems determined not to do the first of these so that leaves the second.
"Diehard Remainer" as I am not, I am certainly a remainer, albeit we all live for the moment in a Leave country and I think the vast majority of remainers have reconciled themselves to this - I have. So I say this very tentatively but if Boris became PM and he suspended parliament under some legal method and that lead to our leaving the EU on October 31st, then that would be enacting the democratic will of the people.
I don't for a moment think he will get away with it, plus Rory the Tory will set up shop in the coffee shop opposite, but we voted to leave and we haven't left.
Parliament has voted that we leave 31 October.
Proroguing Parliament until 1 November so that what Parliament voted for is implemented is another way out of the impasse. If Parliament didn't mean it when they voted to leave 31 October then that was a highly irresponsible thing to do.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
Doesn’t dispute Trumps point that May and the Civil Service borked up Brexit I note...
Trump does not have a point. His advice to May was "sue them". His meeting with Varadkar was a great showcase of his nuanced appreciation of the issues surrounding the land border and the GFA.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?
So if Theresa May had all the MPs rounded up and thrown in prison and declared herself Supreme Leader, that wouldn't be a suspension of democracy because we didn't have any elections planned?
I think that would be different, I can't recall any precedence for that. But I can recall precedence for proroguing Parliament. In fact a proroguation is fairly standard. I can't recall a single 5 year Parliamentary term in my lifetime without Parliament being prorogued at least once.
The difference here is the timing and the consequences. But the consequences are literally because of Parliament not the referendum.
Parliament passed a law to invoke Article 50. Parliament passed a law to take us out of the EU after Article 50 was invoked. Parliament passed a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October.
If we leave on 31 October it will solely be because of the laws Parliament has passed, not executive action. Proroguing Parliament doesn't set any new laws it just keeps the existing laws Parliament already voted for in place until they sit again.
Did Parliament pass a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October - I don't believe they did...
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
Despite the referendum formally having been advisory only, it is clearly better for legitimacy if the public endorse an alternative path. Once that is done I doubt we'll be seeing any more referendums in our lifetime.
I don’t have a problem with deal vs no deal, just with a Remain alternative
Frankly I think “advisory” referenda are BS - if you ask the voters you are duty bound to follow their instructions.
My father was posted at the DC embassy in the early-mid 80s and he always maintained that anything else after is a step down and a big one (he got sent to Zaire after DC - haha). The ambassador's residence on Massachusetts Ave. alone makes it a glittering prize.
The suggestion was slightly tongue in cheek (perhaps we could swap the two ambassadors around... ?), but China is of rather greater global significance than was the case in the 80s.
Disagree. It was perfectly obvious in the '80s, really from 1978 onwards, that China was inevitably going to be a huge global player within a generation or two.
Perhaps, but it was not the case then, and it is the reality now.
U.K. Ambassador Kim Darroch was disinvited from a dinner that U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is hosting Monday with President Donald Trump and the emir of Qatar, according to a U.S. official.
Really, why wouldn’t we do exactly the same thing to the US Ambassador here. Politely make it clear that if the Trump government is going to behave with such discourtesy then we will respond in kind. For every freezing out etc there will be an equivalent response here.
Our ambassador has done nothing wrong and yet, because of the behaviour of others, is likely going to have his career ruined. He ought to be promoted so as to make clear to the leaker and anyone else hoping to profit by their misbehaviour that they won’t prosper.
It’s a disgrace that people aren’t condemning Trump from the rooftops for his appalling intrusion into our internal affairs.
It's a grey area. The ambassador to America is quite literally an external not an internal affair to begin with. All ambassadors are external to the UK. If the USA chooses to make Darroch persona non grata then that is their right and is an internal American affair. America is the host country and they have every right to make anyone they want persona non grata
Trump is being utterly pathetic here but that is his right. And Americans should judge him for being thin skinned and a pathetic weasel. But let's imagine the shoe was on the other foot and on something more serious.
Let's imagine leaks showed the Russian Ambassador to the UK was involved in the Skripal affair. We would have every right to make the Russian Ambassador persona non grata and even to expel them.
Regardless of Trump's behaviour, what I don't get is May's response to this. There are plenty of ways of showing you won't be bullied but saying Darroch has her "full support" makes it sounds like she agreed with his view of Trump. She may well do but she has just shown (again) how tin-eared she is when it comes to how it comes across when she gives a message.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
.
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
But we have a constitution which says parliament > referenda
Who gets to decide to change that? If it is just the PM and the Queen with no consent from parliament or the public that is a coup.
The constitution doesn’t say that. It’s an evolving group of conventions.
Parliament asked the people to vote and promised to implement the outcome. Having asked the people they have passed their authority on this matter to the voters.
There is nothing in the constitution that has evolved to suggest an advisory referendum takes precedence over parliamentary sovereignty!
At best you could argue that parliament has passed their authority on whether we leave to the voters. At no point has the issue of how and when we leave been passed to the voters. That is entirely the responsibility and duty of parliament. If they cannot agree and it takes five years rather than three then so be it. If they decide to vote for no deal then so be it. But to take it away from parliament without any vote from MPs or the public is an affront to democracy and our constitution.
The only people arguing for the authority of how and when to be passed to the voters are the second reffers.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?
So if Theresa May had all the MPs rounded up and thrown in prison and declared herself Supreme Leader, that wouldn't be a suspension of democracy because we didn't have any elections planned?
I think that would be different, I can't recall any precedence for that. But I can recall precedence for proroguing Parliament. In fact a proroguation is fairly standard. I can't recall a single 5 year Parliamentary term in my lifetime without Parliament being prorogued at least once.
The difference here is the timing and the consequences. But the consequences are literally because of Parliament not the referendum.
Parliament passed a law to invoke Article 50. Parliament passed a law to take us out of the EU after Article 50 was invoked. Parliament passed a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October.
If we leave on 31 October it will solely be because of the laws Parliament has passed, not executive action. Proroguing Parliament doesn't set any new laws it just keeps the existing laws Parliament already voted for in place until they sit again.
Did Parliament pass a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October - I don't believe they did...
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
Despite the referendum formally having been advisory only, it is clearly better for legitimacy if the public endorse an alternative path. Once that is done I doubt we'll be seeing any more referendums in our lifetime.
I don’t have a problem with deal vs no deal, just with a Remain alternative
Frankly I think “advisory” referenda are BS - if you ask the voters you are duty bound to follow their instructions.
To have a problem with Remain on the ballot is bizarre! The split of opinion in the country and in parliament is Remain/Leave not Deal/No Deal. That is the reality that needs to be resolved with a confirmatory referendum on concrete proposals.
If your problem with Remain on the ballot paper is that you are concerned that Remain will win, your position is logical but deeply undemocratic.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
There’s a mandate to leave.
Everything else is supposition
No, it is not supposition, the leave campaign promised we would get not just a deal but a fantastic deal. At the last GE the party supporting no deal got 1.8% of votes, 98.2% voted for other partiers promising at least a deal.
What would count as promotion for the Ambassador to the USA?
Given that one of the main jobs of that ambassador is to gain influence for the UK with the world's most powerful nation's government, fairly or unfairly the incumbent is now damaged goods (unfairly, obviously). That would be the case even if the present president wasn't a thin-skinned egotist. He will need to be replaced. The president doesn't get to choose the replacement but he is within his rights (even if he is being an arse about it) if he doesn't want to deal with someone who doesn't respect him.
A proper leak inquiry should be conducted and the culprit should be strung up by their nether regions. Leaking such confidential briefings for partisan advantage is treacherous.
Problem here.
If we restrict the candidates for next Ambassador to those who respect Trump we are by definition ruling out everybody who is possessed of the combination of high intelligence and sound judgement that is required to be effective in the job.
But in any case not to worry - the more important thing is that our next 'man or woman in Washington' gets on with Kamala Harris.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
Disgraceful. And only a few weeks after the D-Day memorials. Have we learnt nothing?
To listen to them you’d think they had been first on the beaches.
Tbf the saner Brexiters (I know!) claim their dads were first on the beaches & therefore beach storming, bunker charging, Fritz slaughtering blood flows sluggishly through their veins. Mind you I've seen it claimed so many times that either there were a few very sexually active Tommies or UK assault forces at Gold & Juno were much larger than history records.
There is nothing in the constitution that has evolved to suggest an advisory referendum takes precedence over parliamentary sovereignty!
At best you could argue that parliament has passed their authority on whether we leave to the voters. At no point has the issue of how and when we leave been passed to the voters. That is entirely the responsibility and duty of parliament. If they cannot agree and it takes five years rather than three then so be it. If they decide to vote for no deal then so be it. But to take it away from parliament without any vote from MPs or the public is an affront to democracy and our constitution.
The only people arguing for the authority of how and when to be passed to the voters are the second reffers.
But Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. Parliament voted to repeal the Acts that enabled EU membership. Parliament voted to set the date we leave as 31 October.
Parliament has already done all that. Not the voters at the referendum. If Parliament shuts up shop now we leave on 31 October due to Parliament not the referendum.
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Then you will have no complaints if Parliament votes to prevent prorogation ?
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Then you will have no complaints if Parliament votes to prevent prorogation ?
No. Proroguation isn't a tactic I support, I just don't think it is suspending democracy or any of the other hyperbolic claims made lately. Proroguing Parliament happens once a year typically
The only reason proroguing Parliament now is an issue is if MPs weren't serious when they voted to leave 31 October . . . Oh I see.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Then you will have no complaints if Parliament votes to prevent prorogation ?
Whichever way parliament votes on the Grieve amendment today, it will have "taken back control". That goes for either accepting or rejecting his amendment.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Like when? You mean the summer recess, when an election is called that sort of thing?
When has the Prime minister ever requested to pro rogue parliament on a whim?
Not sure if Czechoslovakia is your best blueprint. From what I've heard from young Czechs and Slovaks it was just the elite divvying up the resources for their own mutual political benefit.
The divvying is universal, surely, and was independent of whether the federation survived.
Amusingly, a majority in each republic wanted to stay in the federation by the time it happened, but it went relatively smoothly. The ugliest bit was an attempt to exile Roma to the other party.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Like when? You mean the summer recess, when an election is called that sort of thing?
When has the Prime minister ever requested to pro rogue parliament on a whim?
Yes I mean summer recess etc
Is democracy suspended and is it a constitutional outrage whenever summer recess occurs?
Is democracy suspended whenever we have a General Election? Ha!
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
To expand on this:
MV 1 failed by 432-202, with 118 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 304-320, and it would have passed. MV 2 failed by 391-242, with 75 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 316-317, and it would have passed. MV 3 failed by 344-286 with 34 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 310-320 and it passes.
The ERG were the crucial factor - in every case, they were the bulk of the Conservative rebels, and their rebellion (and certain dooming of the MV) gave the freedom to rebel to other Conservatives who didn't like the deal. Why should they sacrifice their own principles to vote for it when it's not getting through thanks to the hardest of Brexiteers refusing to take Yes for an answer?
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
That's including Grieve and co as ERG though.
And how will the attitude of and person that is our new PM influence the thought process of the EU when we request another extension?
Based on the various polling we’ve seen of membership views, I would now comfortably describe the Conservative Party as “far right”.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
That's including Grieve and co as ERG though.
No, it's answering the allegation that had all Conservatives voted for the Deal it would still have failed. "Even with ALL Tories aboard..."
There is nothing in the constitution that has evolved to suggest an advisory referendum takes precedence over parliamentary sovereignty!
At best you could argue that parliament has passed their authority on whether we leave to the voters. At no point has the issue of how and when we leave been passed to the voters. That is entirely the responsibility and duty of parliament. If they cannot agree and it takes five years rather than three then so be it. If they decide to vote for no deal then so be it. But to take it away from parliament without any vote from MPs or the public is an affront to democracy and our constitution.
The only people arguing for the authority of how and when to be passed to the voters are the second reffers.
But Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. Parliament voted to repeal the Acts that enabled EU membership. Parliament voted to set the date we leave as 31 October.
Parliament has already done all that. Not the voters at the referendum. If Parliament shuts up shop now we leave on 31 October due to Parliament not the referendum.
Equally they are entitled to seek a new deal, rule out no deal, seek a further extension and/or call another referendum
There is nothing in the constitution that has evolved to suggest an advisory referendum takes precedence over parliamentary sovereignty!
At best you could argue that parliament has passed their authority on whether we leave to the voters. At no point has the issue of how and when we leave been passed to the voters. That is entirely the responsibility and duty of parliament. If they cannot agree and it takes five years rather than three then so be it. If they decide to vote for no deal then so be it. But to take it away from parliament without any vote from MPs or the public is an affront to democracy and our constitution.
The only people arguing for the authority of how and when to be passed to the voters are the second reffers.
But Parliament voted to invoke Article 50. Parliament voted to repeal the Acts that enabled EU membership. Parliament voted to set the date we leave as 31 October.
Parliament has already done all that. Not the voters at the referendum. If Parliament shuts up shop now we leave on 31 October due to Parliament not the referendum.
And Parliament voted against leaving with No Deal as well...
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?
So if Theresa May had all the MPs rounded up and thrown in prison and declared herself Supreme Leader, that wouldn't be a suspension of democracy because we didn't have any elections planned?
I think that would be different, I can't recall any precedence for that. But I can recall precedence for proroguing Parliament. In fact a proroguation is fairly standard. I can't recall a single 5 year Parliamentary term in my lifetime without Parliament being prorogued at least once.
The difference here is the timing and the consequences. But the consequences are literally because of Parliament not the referendum.
Parliament passed a law to invoke Article 50. Parliament passed a law to take us out of the EU after Article 50 was invoked. Parliament passed a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October.
If we leave on 31 October it will solely be because of the laws Parliament has passed, not executive action. Proroguing Parliament doesn't set any new laws it just keeps the existing laws Parliament already voted for in place until they sit again.
Did Parliament pass a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October - I don't believe they did...
And how will the attitude and person that is our new PM influence the thought process of the EU when we request another extension?
I don't think we should request another extension. And if we do we should request it on the sole condition that any extension is solely to negotiate an alternative WDA especially regarding the backstop.
If the EU isn't ok with that they are within their rights to reject an extension request.
Doesn’t dispute Trumps point that May and the Civil Service borked up Brexit I note...
Trump does not have a point. His advice to May was "sue them". His meeting with Varadkar was a great showcase of his nuanced appreciation of the issues surrounding the land border and the GFA.
He knows nothing. Rex Tillerson had it right.
You can only bully other countries if your country is more powerful and in a position to do so. There is nothing clever or admirable in the way Trump uses the power of the USA to bully others.
Had he been in the UK's position negotiating with the EU27 he would have been a complete and utter disaster. May got roughly the best deal available but, of course, it suits the Brexiteers to perpetuate the myth that there would have been a much better deal if a true believer had been in charge.
That proposition will shortly be tested, I wondre what the next excuse will be.
Not sure if Czechoslovakia is your best blueprint. From what I've heard from young Czechs and Slovaks it was just the elite divvying up the resources for their own mutual political benefit.
The divvying is universal, surely, and was independent of whether the federation survived.
Amusingly, a majority in each republic wanted to stay in the federation by the time it happened, but it went relatively smoothly. The ugliest bit was an attempt to exile Roma to the other party.
Well it was only one Czech and one Slovak that explained it to me. No doubt they formed part of Malky's "foreign born" No voters, which, if he's being sensible, he will say no more about.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Like when? You mean the summer recess, when an election is called that sort of thing?
When has the Prime minister ever requested to pro rogue parliament on a whim?
Yes I mean summer recess etc
Is democracy suspended and is it a constitutional outrage whenever summer recess occurs?
Is democracy suspended whenever we have a General Election? Ha!
Don't be absurd. Hardly anything odd about parliament not sitting because there is an election on. There is a summer recess every year which everyone agrees to. For a PM to try and pro rogue parliament against MPs wishes at a time of such significance and when we might need emergency legislation put in place anyway would be a total outrage. It would also put HM Queen in a rather invidious position.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
It's the form of democracy that is practised in this country. Suspending Parliament is suspending democracy here.
Many diehard Remainers would now describe 52% of the electorate as 'far right'
Willing to suspend democracy? Yes. See Islam as a threat to the British way of life? Yes. See the benefits of immigration outweighed by the disadvantages? Yes.
The Conservative party is becoming a haven for extremists.
Things always look extreme when you only cite the extreme positions. As always it depends on the phrasing of the question and how the respondent interprets it
- immigration: banning immigration is extreme. Thinking the current balance of cost and benefit is wrong is not - Islam: militant Islam is. More philosophically if you look at the social polling among even moderate Muslims on homosexuality or the rights of women, I’d say their views could be seen as “a threat to the British way of life” - Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
Anyone who advocates suspending parliament is beneath contempt.
It’s not a route I would advocate but it’s not the same as “suspending democracy”.
But we do have an issue where Parliament seems determined to frustrate any possible outcome
In what way is it different?
Parliamentary democracy isn’t the only form of democracy. What we have is a conflict between two forms. It’s why I’m just as opposed to a second referendum with a Remain option - that’s also [ignoring] democracy (at least one form thereof)
Despite the referendum formally having been advisory only, it is clearly better for legitimacy if the public endorse an alternative path. Once that is done I doubt we'll be seeing any more referendums in our lifetime.
I don’t have a problem with deal vs no deal, just with a Remain alternative
Frankly I think “advisory” referenda are BS - if you ask the voters you are duty bound to follow their instructions.
Fine, but your opinion can't change what it was.
If people cant confirm majority support for a specific change proposition, obviously we stay s we are
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
To expand on this:
MV 1 failed by 432-202, with 118 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 304-320, and it would have passed. MV 2 failed by 391-242, with 75 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 316-317, and it would have passed. MV 3 failed by 344-286 with 34 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 310-320 and it passes.
The ERG were the crucial factor - in every case, they were the bulk of the Conservative rebels, and their rebellion (and certain dooming of the MV) gave the freedom to rebel to other Conservatives who didn't like the deal. Why should they sacrifice their own principles to vote for it when it's not getting through thanks to the hardest of Brexiteers refusing to take Yes for an answer?
Data?
Don't be silly! It's always someone else's fault......
@IanB2 point halfway through the thread is incorrect, if all the ERG had got behind May it would have still been defeated.
@MarqueeMark counterpoint is incorrect, if all Tories had got behind the deal then it would have been passed.
BOTH WRONG.
No. In political terms the ERG trashed then sunk their own government's deal. That MPs vote differently on the same proposition in different climates has already been proven by MV2 and 3
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
I’m not going into bat for them - as I said above it’s not a route I advocate.
I’m criticising inflammatory, emotive and imprecise language from @AlastairMeeks
(I spent 3 happy years studying constitutional government with Vernon Bogdanor...)
Didn't Cameron do the same? It didn't seem to help much if he did.
@IanB2 point halfway through the thread is incorrect, if all the ERG had got behind May it would have still been defeated.
@MarqueeMark counterpoint is incorrect, if all Tories had got behind the deal then it would have been passed.
BOTH WRONG.
No. In political terms the ERG trashed then sunk their own government's deal. That MPs vote differently on the same proposition in different climates has already been proven by MV2 and 3
MPs should be strong enough to vote ex their peers. I grant you the appalling Lisa Nandy is a living counterexample of this though. You're answering a different question to the one that was given in the thread anyhow.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
Democracy suspenders? Which election is being suspended?
So if Theresa May had all the MPs rounded up and thrown in prison and declared herself Supreme Leader, that wouldn't be a suspension of democracy because we didn't have any elections planned?
I think that would be different, I can't recall any precedence for that. But I can recall precedence for proroguing Parliament. In fact a proroguation is fairly standard. I can't recall a single 5 year Parliamentary term in my lifetime without Parliament being prorogued at least once.
The difference here is the timing and the consequences. But the consequences are literally because of Parliament not the referendum.
Parliament passed a law to invoke Article 50. Parliament passed a law to take us out of the EU after Article 50 was invoked. Parliament passed a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October.
If we leave on 31 October it will solely be because of the laws Parliament has passed, not executive action. Proroguing Parliament doesn't set any new laws it just keeps the existing laws Parliament already voted for in place until they sit again.
Did Parliament pass a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October - I don't believe they did...
@IanB2 point halfway through the thread is incorrect, if all the ERG had got behind May it would have still been defeated.
@MarqueeMark counterpoint is incorrect, if all Tories had got behind the deal then it would have been passed.
BOTH WRONG.
No. In political terms the ERG trashed then sunk their own government's deal. That MPs vote differently on the same proposition in different climates has already been proven by MV2 and 3
MPs should be strong enough to vote ex their peers. I grant you the appalling Lisa Nandy is a living counterexample of this though.
As were a fair few Tories including the wobbly wing of the ERG and our new Churchill himself.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
That is rather different than the PM leading a minority government enacting political decisions by suspending Parliament. It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
If Parliament is suspended then Parliament's own decisions are what will be implemented. No new Acts of Parliament will pass until Parliament is resumed. As is standard whenever Parliament is prorogued which happens quite regularly.
Like when? You mean the summer recess, when an election is called that sort of thing?
When has the Prime minister ever requested to pro rogue parliament on a whim?
Yes I mean summer recess etc
Is democracy suspended and is it a constitutional outrage whenever summer recess occurs?
Is democracy suspended whenever we have a General Election? Ha!
Don't be absurd. Hardly anything odd about parliament not sitting because there is an election on. There is a summer recess every year which everyone agrees to. For a PM to try and pro rogue parliament against MPs wishes at a time of such significance and when we might need emergency legislation put in place anyway would be a total outrage. It would also put HM Queen in a rather invidious position.
We will see if proroguation is against MPs wishes with Grieve's vote today. If he wins so be it, if he loses then so be it too. Parliament will have voted . . . Again.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
And also because everyone has finally realised that completely ignoring established political convention is the point of Donald Trump, and that trying to criticise him for it only serves to entrench his popularity among his base?
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
I’m not going into bat for them - as I said above it’s not a route I advocate.
I’m criticising inflammatory, emotive and imprecise language from @AlastairMeeks
(I spent 3 happy years studying constitutional government with Vernon Bogdanor...)
Didn't Cameron do the same? It didn't seem to help much if he did.
I was going to say that Vernon's wisdom must have been in one ear and out the other. It appears it may have stayed in there long enough to pass the exams though.
I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.
The leaking of Kim Darroch's remarks is certainly highly irregular. Can we all agree that the leaker needs to be sacked for gross misconduct ASAP?
Jail time.
A wicked thought, but I have not seen it expressed elsewhere. Could the person responsible for this leak be based somewhere in the White House? Presumably the Americans get hold of all our secret messages - well, if the Russians can, it does not make it impossible. And if the objective of the US administration is to make stable governments collapse on all sides, so that they can pick through the rubble, this would surely be a motive. Our British establishment are all at one another`s throats.
And then Boris Johnson - a Trump poodle - could as prime minster appoint Mr Farage - another Trump poodle - to be the next British ambassador to the US. All cut and dried.
The leaking of Kim Darroch's remarks is certainly highly irregular. Can we all agree that the leaker needs to be sacked for gross misconduct ASAP?
Jail time.
A wicked thought, but I have not seen it expressed elsewhere. Could the person responsible for this leak be based somewhere in the White House? Presumably the Americans get hold of all our secret messages - well, if the Russians can, it does not make it impossible. And if the objective of the US administration is to make stable governments collapse on all sides, so that they can pick through the rubble, this would surely be a motive. Our British establishment are all at one another`s throats.
And then Boris Johnson - a Trump poodle - could as prime minster appoint Mr Farage - another Trump poodle - to be the next British ambassador to the US. All cut and dried.
The Trump is a really clever man hypothesis?
File alongside Mrs May must have a really cunning plan B
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
- Suspend democracy - nope. This is a perceived conflict between parliamentary democracy and popular democracy. suspending parliament to implement the result of a popular vote is not the same as “suspending democracy”
It is literally suspending democracy. You can dress it up however you like, but you are advocating suspending the body that is democratically elected to achieve your aim. Note, that body was elected after the referendum result, so you don't even have that excuse.
The Conservative party is now controlled by enemies of democracy.
Parliamentary democracy is not the only form of democracy.
I happen to believe it is the best form, but it’s not the only one. Switzerland, for example, has a plebiscite based approach while Austria believes in consociationalism.
I must have missed the Brexit paper on “consociationalism”.
Charles going in to bat for the democracy-suspenders is a pretty sordid sight.
I’m not going into bat for them - as I said above it’s not a route I advocate.
I’m criticising inflammatory, emotive and imprecise language from @AlastairMeeks
(I spent 3 happy years studying constitutional government with Vernon Bogdanor...)
The zeitgeist of Establishment entitlement is tangible.
England never needed satire as much as she does now.
I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.
Getting binding decisions of Parliament passed by majority is not "devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about", nor is it a "version of suspending democracy". You just don't like the policy outcome.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
Indeed. The Diplomat's assessment of Trump and the White House was likewise completely accurate.
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
She successfully kicked the can this far. No mean feat.
She may yet be a retrospective heroine. If revoke wins out.
The leaking of Kim Darroch's remarks is certainly highly irregular. Can we all agree that the leaker needs to be sacked for gross misconduct ASAP?
Jail time.
A wicked thought, but I have not seen it expressed elsewhere. Could the person responsible for this leak be based somewhere in the White House? Presumably the Americans get hold of all our secret messages - well, if the Russians can, it does not make it impossible. And if the objective of the US administration is to make stable governments collapse on all sides, so that they can pick through the rubble, this would surely be a motive. Our British establishment are all at one another`s throats.
And then Boris Johnson - a Trump poodle - could as prime minster appoint Mr Farage - another Trump poodle - to be the next British ambassador to the US. All cut and dried.
The Trump is a really clever man hypothesis? File alongside Mrs May must have a really cunning plan B
The person who did the leaking must be a very stupid man, and also a very reckless one, and obsessed with his own personal goals. I cannot imagine anybody in the professional civil service who would match that description, one or two in the Cabinet perhaps, and not a few in the White House.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
To expand on this:
MV 1 failed by 432-202, with 118 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 304-320, and it would have passed. MV 2 failed by 391-242, with 75 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 316-317, and it would have passed. MV 3 failed by 344-286 with 34 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 310-320 and it passes.
The ERG were the crucial factor - in every case, they were the bulk of the Conservative rebels, and their rebellion (and certain dooming of the MV) gave the freedom to rebel to other Conservatives who didn't like the deal. Why should they sacrifice their own principles to vote for it when it's not getting through thanks to the hardest of Brexiteers refusing to take Yes for an answer?
Data?
Don't be silly! It's always someone else's fault......
The leaking of Kim Darroch's remarks is certainly highly irregular. Can we all agree that the leaker needs to be sacked for gross misconduct ASAP?
Jail time.
A wicked thought, but I have not seen it expressed elsewhere. Could the person responsible for this leak be based somewhere in the White House? Presumably the Americans get hold of all our secret messages - well, if the Russians can, it does not make it impossible. And if the objective of the US administration is to make stable governments collapse on all sides, so that they can pick through the rubble, this would surely be a motive. Our British establishment are all at one another`s throats.
And then Boris Johnson - a Trump poodle - could as prime minster appoint Mr Farage - another Trump poodle - to be the next British ambassador to the US. All cut and dried.
The Trump is a really clever man hypothesis?
File alongside Mrs May must have a really cunning plan B
Because one thing everyone, whatever side of the Brexit debate they're on, can agree with is his assessment of the complete disaster that is Theresa May?
You're looking forward to the unqualified success of the Johnson renegotiation?
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, one vote even, the losers accept it with good grace. It's a real strength in our democracy.
On 24th June 2016, the day after the EU referendum I think the shocked Remainers felt "damn" but accepted the result. I certainly did, and I think polls showed that most Remainers did. It was like an election. You didn't question the result.
The task for Remainers was to get the least damaging version of Leave. (SM/CU). The few Remainers who immediately started to campaign for a 2nd referendum were viewed as sore losers.
That has changed radically and it is worth asking why. I think there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The Leavers had different ideas of what Leave meant and couldn't agree amongst themselves. Because of that disagreement they couldn't implement it. It's like a winning political party having an ambiguous manifesto and then fighting among themselves on how to implement it. Why should the losing party help them? 2. There is much more real information on the consequences of leaving. A significant proportion of voters have changed their mind. 3. The magnitude of the choice and its impact on future generations is much better understood. A closely fought advisory referendum without a super majority requirement is now seen by many as not binding in the way an election for say five years is. 4. Parliament's role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement or No Deal or any form of the Brexit 52% voted for and refuse to respect democracy then diehard Remainers should not be surprised extremism begets extremism.
Plus support for an Australian style points system as Boris wants is hardly Fascism
"Refuse to vote for the Withdrawal Agreement" which would otherwise have passed? The ERG
That's a lie. It would still have failed with the ERG. Why do you keep peddling this lie or can you not count?
Because its the truth. Had they all got behind the deal from the beginning it would have carried.
It's not the f*cking truth.
The DUP were set against May's Deal.
Even with ALL Tories onboard - yes, I'm looking at you Dominic Grieve - it needed Labour votes to overcome the DUP. And how many of them were sticking their heads above the parapet to be the one marked down in the history books as having made Brexit happen?
The ERG were a noisy irrelevence - apart from giving spineless Labour MPs cover for reneging on promises made to their voters.
Look at the numbers. If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
To expand on this:
MV 1 failed by 432-202, with 118 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 304-320, and it would have passed. MV 2 failed by 391-242, with 75 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 316-317, and it would have passed. MV 3 failed by 344-286 with 34 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 310-320 and it passes.
The ERG were the crucial factor - in every case, they were the bulk of the Conservative rebels, and their rebellion (and certain dooming of the MV) gave the freedom to rebel to other Conservatives who didn't like the deal. Why should they sacrifice their own principles to vote for it when it's not getting through thanks to the hardest of Brexiteers refusing to take Yes for an answer?
Data?
Don't be silly! It's always someone else's fault......
Andy provided data - do you dispute the figures?
You don't use Duracell in your Irony Meter then.....
I don't think parliament should be prorogued to force through No Deal. But I also don't see why Dominic Grieve"s version of suspending democracy via devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about, is any better than Johnson/Baker/Cash/whoever doing so by riding a coach and horses through it.
Getting binding decisions of Parliament passed by majority is not "devious behind the scenes legalistic mucking about", nor is it a "version of suspending democracy". You just don't like the policy outcome.
Assuming we aren't going to revoke then that would suggest an EURef2. The more mucking about there is the less likely IMO that remain wins that second referendum.
The Remain line is "but but but" while the Leave line is "what bit of democratic will of the people don't you understand".
We voted to leave, there was no flavour of leaving specified, and no deal is leaving. I think it would be shocking for the country and not something that any sane PM could countenance but the line is very simple - we voted to leave so we're leaving.
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, one vote even, the losers accept it with good grace. It's a real strength in our democracy.
On 24th June 2016, the day after the EU referendum I think the shocked Remainers felt "damn" but accepted the result. I certainly did, and I think polls showed that most Remainers did. It was like an election. You didn't question the result.
The task for Remainers was to get the least damaging version of Leave. (SM/CU). The few Remainers who immediately started to campaign for a 2nd referendum were viewed as sore losers.
That has changed radically and it is worth asking why. I think there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The Leavers had different ideas of what Leave meant and couldn't agree amongst themselves. Because of that disagreement they couldn't implement it. It's like a winning political party having an ambiguous manifesto and then fighting among themselves on how to implement it. Why should the losing party help them? 2. There is much more real information on the consequences of leaving. A significant proportion of voters have changed their mind. 3. The magnitude of the choice and its impact on future generations is much better understood. A closely fought advisory referendum without a super majority requirement is now seen by many as not binding in the way an election for say five years is. 4. Parliament's role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
Yes, this.
John Major nailed it when he said there is a fundamental conflict at the heart of this - the majority in Parliament think it's damaging, but seem unable to tell the truth to their voters.
Parliament is there to act in the best interests of the people, but the whole system locks up when the people aren't acting in their own best interests.
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, one vote even, the losers accept it with good grace. It's a real strength in our democracy.
On 24th June 2016, the day after the EU referendum I think the shocked Remainers felt "damn" but accepted the result. I certainly did, and I think polls showed that most Remainers did. It was like an election. You didn't question the result.
That has changed radically and it is worth asking why. I think there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The Leavers had different ideas of what Leave meant and couldn't agree amongst themselves. Because of that disagreement they couldn't implement it. It's like a winning political party having an ambiguous manifesto and then fighting among themselves on how to implement it. Why should the losing party help them? 2. There is much more real information on the consequences of leaving. A significant proportion of voters have changed their mind. 3. The magnitude of the choice and its impact on future generations is much better understood. A closely fought advisory referendum without a super majority requirement is now seen by many as not binding in the way an election for say five years is. 4. Parliament's role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
The trouble with your argument is that every single one of your points is wrong.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.
3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.
4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close, one vote even, the losers accept it with good grace. It's a real strength in our democracy.
On 24th June 2016, the day after the EU referendum I think the shocked Remainers felt "damn" but accepted the result. I certainly did, and I think polls showed that most Remainers did. It was like an election. You didn't question the result.
The task for Remainers was to get the least damaging version of Leave. (SM/CU). The few Remainers who immediately started to campaign for a 2nd referendum were viewed as sore losers.
That has changed radically and it is worth asking why. I think there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The Leavers had different ideas of what Leave meant and couldn't agree amongst themselves. Because of that disagreement they couldn't implement it. It's like a winning political party having an ambiguous manifesto and then fighting among themselves on how to implement it. Why should the losing party help them? 2. There is much more real information on the consequences of leaving. A significant proportion of voters have changed their mind. 3. The magnitude of the choice and its impact on future generations is much better understood. A closely fought advisory referendum without a super majority requirement is now seen by many as not binding in the way an election for say five years is. 4. Parliament's role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
It comes back down to WA or a Remain vs WA EURef2.
As it always did, except now you will have someone deeply unhinged and someone not particularly unhinged as next PM pledging to leave deal or no deal.
Oh for the golden days of stability under Theresa May.
Labour and the unions seem to be moving to a referendum and remain just at the time their London mps are under a real threat from the Lib Dems.
I do believe most labour members do want to remain in the EU but with labour plummeting in the polls there is a very real chance many labour mps want to neuter Corbyn's extreme policies and remaining in Europe would do that at a stroke.
As far as brexiteers are concerned time is not on their side nor is a Boris lead GE a cure all as most brexit supporting labour mps are standing down, thereby futher reducing brexit support in the HOC
I do think labour are shutting the gate after the horse has bolted as the Lib Dems are the trusted stop brexit brand and do not carry the anti west marxist baggage of Corbyn and his associates
Also Corbyn is facing the fallout from this weeks Panorama and goodness only knows what the equality and human rights commission will conclude.
Labour is not in a good place almost completely down to Corbyn and his associates. Had Corbyn been pro remain brexit would already have died
I doubt that Labour is really under threat from the LibDems in London. Interesting too that Comres gives Labour 28% with the Tories recovering to 25%. The LibDems are well behind on 16% with Brexit Party falling back to 19%.It confirms my view that any early election will see the two big parties polling at least 65% combined.
The decision to erect a border effectively prioritises Ireland's membership of the EU single market over the need to maintain an 'invisible' border in Northern Ireland.
I think respecting the result of an election or referendum in the UK is like forming an orderly queue at a bus stop. We just do it. We don't need a law to enforce it. Even if the result is close the losers accept it with good grace. It's a real strength in our democracy.
On 24th June 2016, the day after the EU referendum I think the shocked Remainers felt "damn" but accepted the result. I certainly did, and I think polls showed that most Remainers did. It was like an election. You didn't question the result.
That has changed radically and it is worth asking why. I think there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The Leavers had different ideas of what Leave meant and couldn't agree amongst themselves. [snip] It's like a winning political party having an ambiguous manifesto and then fighting among themselves on how to implement it. Why should the losing party help them? 2. [snip]. A significant proportion of voters have changed their mind. 3. [snip] A closely fought advisory referendum without a super majority requirement is now seen by many as not binding in the way an election for say five years is. 4. Parliament's role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
The trouble with your argument is that every single one of your points is wrong.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.
3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.
4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.
Do you accept that the weather has changed? The day after EUref, the result was accepted by almost everyone. Now about half the country does not accept it.
I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?
Comments
I’m criticising inflammatory, emotive and imprecise language from @AlastairMeeks
(I spent 3 happy years studying constitutional government with Vernon Bogdanor...)
But there’s no one who comes out of this well.
This has ruined referendums for a generation.
Parliament asked the people to vote and promised to implement the outcome. Having asked the people they have passed their authority on this matter to the voters.
The idea that the interminable internecine warfare didn't do more to kill the deal (with both parliament and public) than anything in the actual terms themselves is absurd.
The WA is Leave, except to the headbangers who claim it's not.
Some people claim we have already left.
There is no destination from here that will solve Brexit.
If we leave and it's a clusterfuck, those who advocated it, campaigned for it, voted for it, will denounce it. Some already have.
The difference here is the timing and the consequences. But the consequences are literally because of Parliament not the referendum.
Parliament passed a law to invoke Article 50.
Parliament passed a law to take us out of the EU after Article 50 was invoked.
Parliament passed a vote to set the date we leave as 31 October.
If we leave on 31 October it will solely be because of the laws Parliament has passed, not executive action. Proroguing Parliament doesn't set any new laws it just keeps the existing laws Parliament already voted for in place until they sit again.
What some people might have wanted vs what other people might have wanted vs what was or was not on the ballot paper vs hard/soft/poached matters not a jot. In 2016 the UK voted to leave the EU and we have not left the EU yet.
Now, parliament for very good reasons imo has not agreed on a way to leave. So that leaves an impasse and the only way out of it is either pass the WA or have a 2nd referendum. Parliament seems determined not to do the first of these so that leaves the second.
"Diehard Remainer" as I am not, I am certainly a remainer, albeit we all live for the moment in a Leave country and I think the vast majority of remainers have reconciled themselves to this - I have. So I say this very tentatively but if Boris became PM and he suspended parliament under some legal method and that lead to our leaving the EU on October 31st, then that would be enacting the democratic will of the people.
I don't for a moment think he will get away with it, plus Rory the Tory will set up shop in the coffee shop opposite, but we voted to leave and we haven't left.
Proroguing Parliament until 1 November so that what Parliament voted for is implemented is another way out of the impasse. If Parliament didn't mean it when they voted to leave 31 October then that was a highly irresponsible thing to do.
It is a suspension of democracy; there is no mandate for no deal.
He knows nothing. Rex Tillerson had it right.
Frankly I think “advisory” referenda are BS - if you ask the voters you are duty bound to follow their instructions.
It’s up to the executive to deliver on instructions and be judged for it
Unfortunately parliament tried a power grab
At best you could argue that parliament has passed their authority on whether we leave to the voters. At no point has the issue of how and when we leave been passed to the voters. That is entirely the responsibility and duty of parliament. If they cannot agree and it takes five years rather than three then so be it. If they decide to vote for no deal then so be it. But to take it away from parliament without any vote from MPs or the public is an affront to democracy and our constitution.
The only people arguing for the authority of how and when to be passed to the voters are the second reffers.
Everything else is supposition
This is what Parliamentary Sovereignty looks like
And as predicted, it is denounced by those who wanted it...
If your problem with Remain on the ballot paper is that you are concerned that Remain will win, your position is logical but deeply undemocratic.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1148514985355743233
If we restrict the candidates for next Ambassador to those who respect Trump we are by definition ruling out everybody who is possessed of the combination of high intelligence and sound judgement that is required to be effective in the job.
But in any case not to worry - the more important thing is that our next 'man or woman in Washington' gets on with Kamala Harris.
If every Conservative had voted for the Withdrawal Agreement - in any of the Meaningful Votes - it would have passed.
This is simple arithmetic. Take all the Tory NO votes and put them on the AYE side and the vote carries. All three times.
Parliament voted to repeal the Acts that enabled EU membership.
Parliament voted to set the date we leave as 31 October.
Parliament has already done all that. Not the voters at the referendum. If Parliament shuts up shop now we leave on 31 October due to Parliament not the referendum.
The only reason proroguing Parliament now is an issue is if MPs weren't serious when they voted to leave 31 October . . . Oh I see.
When has the Prime minister ever requested to pro rogue parliament on a whim?
Amusingly, a majority in each republic wanted to stay in the federation by the time it happened, but it went relatively smoothly. The ugliest bit was an attempt to exile Roma to the other party.
Is democracy suspended and is it a constitutional outrage whenever summer recess occurs?
Is democracy suspended whenever we have a General Election? Ha!
MV 1 failed by 432-202, with 118 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 304-320, and it would have passed.
MV 2 failed by 391-242, with 75 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 316-317, and it would have passed.
MV 3 failed by 344-286 with 34 Conservatives opposed. Move those to the AYE column and it's 310-320 and it passes.
The ERG were the crucial factor - in every case, they were the bulk of the Conservative rebels, and their rebellion (and certain dooming of the MV) gave the freedom to rebel to other Conservatives who didn't like the deal. Why should they sacrifice their own principles to vote for it when it's not getting through thanks to the hardest of Brexiteers refusing to take Yes for an answer?
Posturing is fine, but decisions are required.
https://twitter.com/ScotIndyDebate/status/1148521459339259904
If the EU isn't ok with that they are within their rights to reject an extension request.
https://order-order.com/2019/07/09/simon-franks-centrist-party-finally-launches/
Are you TUP aware?
the power of the USA to bully others.
Had he been in the UK's position negotiating with the EU27 he would have been a complete and utter disaster. May got roughly the best deal available but, of course, it suits the Brexiteers to perpetuate the myth that there would have been a much better deal if a true believer had been in charge.
That proposition will shortly be tested, I wondre what the next excuse will be.
@IanB2 point halfway through the thread is incorrect, if all the ERG had got behind May it would have still been defeated.
@MarqueeMark counterpoint is incorrect, if all Tories had got behind the deal then it would have been passed.
BOTH WRONG.
If people cant confirm majority support for a specific change proposition, obviously we stay s we are
Don't be silly! It's always someone else's fault......
You're answering a different question to the one that was given in the thread anyhow.
And then Boris Johnson - a Trump poodle - could as prime minster appoint Mr Farage - another Trump poodle - to be the next British ambassador to the US. All cut and dried.
File alongside Mrs May must have a really cunning plan B
England never needed satire as much as she does now.
On 24th June 2016, the day after the EU referendum I think the shocked Remainers felt "damn" but accepted the result. I certainly did, and I think polls showed that most Remainers did. It was like an election. You didn't question the result.
The task for Remainers was to get the least damaging version of Leave. (SM/CU). The few Remainers who immediately started to campaign for a 2nd referendum were viewed as sore losers.
That has changed radically and it is worth asking why. I think there are a number of possible reasons.
1. The Leavers had different ideas of what Leave meant and couldn't agree amongst themselves. Because of that disagreement they couldn't implement it. It's like a winning political party having an ambiguous manifesto and then fighting among themselves on how to implement it. Why should the losing party help them?
2. There is much more real information on the consequences of leaving. A significant proportion of voters have changed their mind.
3. The magnitude of the choice and its impact on future generations is much better understood. A closely fought advisory referendum without a super majority requirement is now seen by many as not binding in the way an election for say five years is.
4. Parliament's role is to represent the interests of the people. If that conflicts with the result of the referendum (and it seems to) then it puts a question mark against mindlessly executing the result of the referendum. People are divided on that question.
The result of the referendum is no longer accepted as holy writ. People who declare it would be the end of democracy to ask the people again are greeted with a big yawn.
https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1148524443418935296
The Remain line is "but but but" while the Leave line is "what bit of democratic will of the people don't you understand".
We voted to leave, there was no flavour of leaving specified, and no deal is leaving. I think it would be shocking for the country and not something that any sane PM could countenance but the line is very simple - we voted to leave so we're leaving.
John Major nailed it when he said there is a fundamental conflict at the heart of this - the majority in Parliament think it's damaging, but seem unable to tell the truth to their voters.
Parliament is there to act in the best interests of the people, but the whole system locks up when the people aren't acting in their own best interests.
1. We did not have a Leaver in charge of trying to enact the result, we had a Remainer - and a particularly inept one at that. It was her inability to either understand or seriously try to enact a reasonable Leave that has led us to this point.
2. There are not a significant proportion that have changed their minds. As far as the polls go there is little difference between the polls today and those in advance of the referendum itself.
3. The magnitude of the change was always clear. Indeed the Remain camp spent the whole referendum campaign telling us just how important and irreversible this decision would be.
4. Parliament do not see their role as representing the interests of the people. They see it as achieving their own personal political ends. When almost three quarters of MPs are Remain voters and they put their own personal views and advancement ahead of the interests of the people they can in no way be considered representative nor fit for purpose.
As it always did, except now you will have someone deeply unhinged and someone not particularly unhinged as next PM pledging to leave deal or no deal.
Oh for the golden days of stability under Theresa May.
I see a statement on the EU listed but please once again show me the vote and the result of the vote
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/09/irish-accept-need-border-checks-no-deal-brexit/
I gave a number of possible reasons. What are yours?