The Brexit process

[littlebabyjesus]

Clappers - a question for (some of) you:

Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed) parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.

I'm not exactly a 'clapper', but I've argued that the exercise by govt of the royal prerogative is a dangerous, bad thing for years. And in this case, they're being pretty disingenuous in their reasoning. It must happen, but it must happen at the time of our choosing, not immediately or even nearly immediately. Why end of next March? Why not last month or the month before that, or next week?

 

[Pickman's model]

The question needs to be: "Do you support the result of the referendum: YES/NO ?" Through the no door lies the guillotine.

 

[butchersapron]

The question needs to be: "Do you support the result of the referendum: YES/NO ?" Through the no door lies the guillotine.

Sadly the only guillotining that's going to take place is the procedural motion to limit debate time in the commons.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not exactly a 'clapper',

more of a croaker

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not exactly a 'clapper', but I've argued that the exercise by govt of the royal prerogative is a dangerous, bad thing for years. And in this case, they're being pretty disingenuous in their reasoning. It must happen, but it must happen at the time of our choosing, not immediately or even nearly immediately. Why end of next March? Why not last month or the month before that, or next week?

So is that a yes or a no?

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.

Unashamedly so. The whole thing is a sorry mess that's been a clusterfuck from the very start. Nothing left to do but laugh now.

 

[Pickman's model]

So is that a yes or a no?

it's a load of auld cant

 

[sihhi]

Unashamedly so. The whole thing is a sorry mess that's been a clusterfuck from the very start. Nothing left to do but laugh now.

Our working class has nothing to gain from either side.

 

[Pickman's model]

Our working class has nothing to gain from either side.

not even entertainment

 

[not-bono-ever]

BTW, there is already a booking at the supreme court for this. its as if the government had an idea the challenge would succeed

 

[butchersapron]

BTW, there is already a booking at the supreme court for this. its as if the government had an idea the challenge would succeed

That was the supreme court doing that, not the govt.

 

[chilango]

Clappers - a question for (some of) you:

Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed in parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed) parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.

I'm cheering this move because anything that sticks the failure of parliamentary democracy right in people's faces is a good thing imho

 

[not-bono-ever]

Why oh why oh why cant we have a proper leader like Putin who would not bother with all this legal flip flopping and just sort the problem out. He has some supporters on here for his no nonsense approach .

 

[Raheem]

Clappers - a question for (some of) you:

Do you imagine that you'd argue the same way about the supremacy of parliament if say the referendum was on the taking of the railways into public ownership - same result (yes winning) and same 75% opposed in parliament. If you answer yes, that it's up to the (opposed) parliament to decide, then fair enough, you're arguing on the principle you say you are. If no, then not. You're just cheering political top-down moves to block an action that you don't personally support.

This is about ends and means, so it's not a straightforward question.

For argument's sake, though, assuming i have unswerving respect for democracy and the rule of law, I'm never going to want anything to be achieved that requires the Prime Minister to exceed their powers.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Why oh why oh why cant we have a proper leader like Putin who would not bother with all this legal flip flopping and just sort the problem out. He has some supporters on here for his no nonsense approach .

Why oh why oh why can't we just ask the people what they want and when they answer, just do it without crying in to our baguettes?

 

[bimble]

Only 51.9% will be angry and on the streets nige and I think the 48.1% of pro EU urban elites will likely be better tooled up to crush the uprising. A scorched earth policy of everywhere above the M25 will the likely result

Unsurprising poll results from poll a couple of weeks ago

YouGov | Decision on Article 50 should rest with PM, not Parliament, says public

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So is that a yes or a no?

I don't necessarily support a system of policy-making by referendum. I wouldn't necessarily want there to be a referendum on nationalising the railways. If the govt wants to do it, they should go ahead and try to do it. If this system were extended to include specific policies such as nationalising stuff, the system itself would need to be changed (to something more like what there is in Switzerland), making your question rather meaningless.

But as a general principle, I see no reason not to oppose and continue to oppose things voted for by referendum. Plenty of objectionable stuff has been voted through in Switzerland that I would most certainly oppose if I lived there. On balance, I don't think the Swiss system, where a question like nationalising railways might be put to a referendum, is a well-functioning one.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't necessarily support a system of policy-making by referendum. I wouldn't necessarily want there to be a referendum on nationalising the railways. If the govt wants to do it, they should go ahead and try to do it. If this system were extended to include specific policies such as nationalising stuff, the system itself would need to be changed (to something more like what there is in Switzerland), making your question rather meaningless.

But as a general principle, I see no reason not to oppose and continue to oppose things voted for by referendum. Plenty of objectionable stuff has been voted through in Switzerland that I would most certainly oppose if I lived there. On balance, I don't think the Swiss system, where a question like nationalising railways might be put to a referendum, is a well-functioning one.

other objectionable referenda include the 1938 plebiscite on union between germany and austria

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Unsurprising poll results from poll a couple of weeks ago
View attachment 94795
YouGov | Decision on Article 50 should rest with PM, not Parliament, says public

A prime minister who wasn't the prime minister who called the referendum, of course. This is not a situation where the sitting leader can point to a referendum as support for them and what they are trying to do. This referendum is no such thing for May. There are lots of contradictions.

 

[mauvais]

A scorched earth policy of everywhere above the M25 will the likely result

Business as usual then

 

[andysays]

It's a potential mess. I don't see how they can whip it, tbh. Many tory MPs (and labour for that matter) can legitimately say that they are personally opposed to brexit, and have a record showing as much, that so is the majority in their constituency, and that they campaigned in the last election on that basis.

Of course they can

Also, if they are presented with anything more sophisticated than 'in/out, yes/no', they can legitimately say that it is their job to scrutinise that and then be held accountable for their decision after that scrutiny. That's what a parliament is supposed to be for.

...even if it means over-riding the decision arrived at by the whole electorate at the referendum held to decide the issue

But in fact you're quite right. in a strictly legal/constitutional sense, the electorate have no authority to decide on this or any other issue. Parliament is and remains sovereign, and no one should forget it.

 

[andysays]

I'm cheering this move because anything that sticks the failure of parliamentary democracy right in people's faces is a good thing imho

And this sort of demonstration of that failure/contradiction is exactly the sort of thing I was hoping for when I argued and voted for Leave.

Whether we can gain further from it all remains to be seen

 

[littlebabyjesus]

...even if it means over-riding the decision arrived at by the whole electorate at the referendum held to decide the issue .

Well that's one of the contradictions, isn't it? The referendum voted 'out', but with no detail about how it would happen or the consequences of the various options. Whichever particular version of brexit the govt comes up with, it would not be democratic for them to be able to force it through using the referendum as justification.

 

[bimble]

(from the DM comments, of which there are many)

 

[gosub]

cue all the fucking remainers on facebook getting all excited and talking about victories for democracy

It is a victory for democracy, representative democracy anyway. Some leaver are going to feel its Putney 1647 again, but quite happy myself. One of the biggest problems with the EU was the way National governments used it as a tool to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny.

Means though, we will probably have a General Election very soon. Think the headache will be the Lords and that will have to be reformed too. Just had some pro government pillock saying they need all sorts of rulings from the Supreme Court to avoid constitutional crisis.....NO that would be a constitutional crisis..Leadership and solutions need to now come from Parliament, not the judges.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

But in fact you're quite right. in a strictly legal/constitutional sense, the electorate have no authority to decide on this or any other issue. Parliament is and remains sovereign, and no one should forget it.

The referendum was always consultative. But I imagine the court challenge, and the subsequent Parliamentary process, will merely increase the widespread perception that the interests of the political class are diametrically opposed to theirs.

 

[sleaterkinney]

I doubt if Labour would put up enough opposition to stop it anyway.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

It is a victory for democracy, representative democracy anyway.

Amazing to see those with avowedly progressive politics holding this view. Would you always support the right of Parliamentary sovereignty over the people?

 

[Pickman's model]

The referendum was always consultative. But I imagine the court challenge, and the subsequent Parliamentary process, will merely increase the widespread perception that the interests of the political class are diametrically opposed to theirs.

yeh. but the interests of the political, or ruling, class are of course diametrically opposed to theirs and the ruling class trick is to make other classes associate themselves with the interests of the ruling, or political, class.

 

[Raheem]

I doubt if Labour would put up enough opposition to stop it anyway.

They should be whipped to abstain and let the Tories scratch each other's eyes out.