|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 17:44:28 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 17:44:28 GMT
Neil explains it perfectly why people opposed to a No Deal Brexit don't want an election before 31st October. There is the summit on 17th/18th October where Boris has been instructed to ask for an extension to the deadline and if he didn't could hold him to account in Parliament the next week. If there is an election and Parliament has been dissolved then it would have to go to the courts if Boris refused to ask for an extension and then there could be appeals. Plus in the middle of an Election campaign, the parties will be worried about retaining or winning seats.
I still think a Government of National Unity with anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn as PM would be unfeasible. Would the Labour Left allow this to happen and their support would be needed to make this happen I'd think. Plus what would the Labour Left and Tory Right do to those who they would see as betraying their party.
Boris using words like surrender isn't inciting hatred. Maybe a few of the MPs need to consider their actions if they are going so strongly against their constituents' views to have this reaction. Any death treats of course are totally wrong and uncalled for and Boris made a huge misjudgement bringing up Jo Cox's name last night and should admit this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 18:14:17 GMT
I cannot see how this is ever going to be resolved as there seems to be so much vitriol and with the 50/50 split with yes or no to Brexit I cannot see how this country will ever be the same again. Depressing I know but this has been a real game changer for politics and how this country is seen by the world. There will be a nice big war, close to home that will get us to forget about this I suspect....... |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 26, 2019 19:27:49 GMT
Tory introduce Fixed Term Act Thought it was a LibDem thing as a condition of the coalition? Kept Theresa May in Downing Street for so long. And Boris for too long as it happens |
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 26, 2019 19:29:18 GMT
Boris using words like surrender isn't inciting hatred. Maybe a few of the MPs need to consider their actions if they are going so strongly against their constituents' views to have this reaction. Any death treats of course are totally wrong and uncalled for and Boris made a huge misjudgement bringing up Jo Cox's name last night and should admit this. So deaths threats are wrong but maybe MP's shouldn't provoke them, are you serious? You know it's quite easy to not threaten someone's life, you just don't do it. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 19:29:57 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 26, 2019 19:29:57 GMT
Neil explains it perfectly why people opposed to a No Deal Brexit don't want an election before 31st October. There is the summit on 17th/18th October where Boris has been instructed to ask for an extension to the deadline and if he didn't could hold him to account in Parliament the next week. If there is an election and Parliament has been dissolved then it would have to go to the courts if Boris refused to ask for an extension and then there could be appeals. Plus in the middle of an Election campaign, the parties will be worried about retaining or winning seats. I still think a Government of National Unity with anyone other than Jeremy Corbyn as PM would be unfeasible. Would the Labour Left allow this to happen and their support would be needed to make this happen I'd think. Plus what would the Labour Left and Tory Right do to those who they would see as betraying their party. Boris using words like surrender isn't inciting hatred. Maybe a few of the MPs need to consider their actions if they are going so strongly against their constituents' views to have this reaction. Any death treats of course are totally wrong and uncalled for and Boris made a huge misjudgement bringing up Jo Cox's name last night and should admit this. As if Corbyn will give way for Chukka Ummuna. No stick with the current policy and have an election after 31 October |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 19:40:57 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 26, 2019 19:40:57 GMT
I cannot see how this is ever going to be resolved as there seems to be so much vitriol and with the 50/50 split with yes or no to Brexit I cannot see how this country will ever be the same again. Depressing I know but this has been a real game changer for politics and how this country is seen by the world. There will be a nice big war, close to home that will get us to forget about this I suspect....... Is Tony Blair - lovely chap, never told a lie - making a political come back!? |
|
2,342 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 19:47:48 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 26, 2019 19:47:48 GMT
There will be a nice big war, close to home that will get us to forget about this I suspect....... Is Tony Blair - lovely chap, never told a lie - making a political come back!? Your hackles have gone up on the back of your neck |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 20:39:45 GMT
The government is being stopped calling a General Election, stopped honouring the referendum result, I've already said it a million times, but once more won't hurt - the referendum did not condone No Deal, so stopping No Deal is not dishonouring the referendum result. Fine distinctions are critically important, and it's astonishing how many people don't bother to think about them. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 26, 2019 20:43:26 GMT
The government is being stopped calling a General Election, stopped honouring the referendum result, I've already said it a million times, but once more won't hurt - the referendum did not condone No Deal, so stopping No Deal is not dishonouring the referendum result. Fine distinctions are critically important, and it's astonishing how many people don't bother to think about them. Too good for this board |
|
4,181 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 20:57:25 GMT
Post by HereForTheatre on Sept 26, 2019 20:57:25 GMT
The government is being stopped calling a General Election, stopped honouring the referendum result, I've already said it a million times, but once more won't hurt - the referendum did not condone No Deal, so stopping No Deal is not dishonouring the referendum result. Fine distinctions are critically important, and it's astonishing how many people don't bother to think about them. The referendum result was to leave the European Union. That's it. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 20:57:29 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Sept 26, 2019 20:57:29 GMT
What did it condone in the fine print?
|
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 26, 2019 21:06:54 GMT
I've already said it a million times, but once more won't hurt - the referendum did not condone No Deal, so stopping No Deal is not dishonouring the referendum result. Fine distinctions are critically important, and it's astonishing how many people don't bother to think about them. The referendum result was to leave the European Union. That's it. And honouring that is worth illegally closing Parliament, delivering a major shock to our economy, disrupting food and medical supplies and potentially jeopardising people's lives. Why is it that an advisory referendum where the leave side even said we would leave with a deal is now worth the potential chaos of no deal no matter the consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 21:20:15 GMT
I've already said it a million times, but once more won't hurt - the referendum did not condone No Deal, so stopping No Deal is not dishonouring the referendum result. Fine distinctions are critically important, and it's astonishing how many people don't bother to think about them. The referendum result was to leave the European Union. That's it. No, it was to advise the government that a slim majority of people who chose to vote wished to leave the European Union. It didn't legislate for anything, and it certainly didn't give any mandate for crashing out of the EU without obtaining a deal. The Article 50 process for leaving the EU is designed to allow time for a deal to be struck, it isn't designed for crashing over the edge of a cliff. The problem was that many Brexiteers seemed to somehow think they could have their cake and eat it, and so dictate how we leave to the EU and not pay the bill. That is not how a negotiation works, that is not how life works and that is not in the best interests of the country. No wonder Parliament had acted to stop such a disaster. What they haven't done though, despite you seemingly trying to imply the contrary, is stop Brexit. But I guess people can't be forced to investigate the truth and learn a bit of constitutional law, if they want to believe the rhetoric and lies then that's up to each individual. The bottom line is that Parliament is simply using the very powers that the Leave campaign trumpeted in the first place, and the fact that the very same Brexiteers are now deriding them for it is frankly the height of hypocrisy. |
|
4,181 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 21:26:08 GMT
Post by HereForTheatre on Sept 26, 2019 21:26:08 GMT
The referendum result was to leave the European Union. That's it. No, it was to advise the government that a slim majority of people who chose to vote wished to leave the European Union. It didn't legislate for anything, and it certainly didn't give any mandate for crashing out of the EU without obtaining a deal. The Article 50 process for leaving the EU is designed to allow time for a deal to be struck, it isn't designed for crashing over the edge of a cliff. The problem was that many Brexiteers seemed to somehow think they could have their cake and eat it, and so dictate how we leave to the EU and not pay the bill. That is not how a negotiation works, that is not how life works and that is not in the best interests of the country. No wonder Parliament had acted to stop such a disaster. What they haven't done though, despite you seemingly trying to imply the contrary, is stop Brexit. But I guess people can't be forced to investigate the truth and learn a bit of constitutional law, if they want to believe the rhetoric and lies then that's up to each individual. The bottom line is that Parliament is simply using the very powers that the Leave campaign trumpeted in the first place, and the fact that the very same Brexiteers are now deriding them for it is frankly the height of hypocrisy. The result of the referendum was the leave the European Union. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 21:28:11 GMT
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 26, 2019 21:28:11 GMT
The referendum result was to leave the European Union. That's it. No, it was to advise the government that a slim majority of people who chose to vote wished to leave the European Union. It didn't legislate for anything, and it certainly didn't give any mandate for crashing out of the EU without obtaining a deal. The Article 50 process for leaving the EU is designed to allow time for a deal to be struck, it isn't designed for crashing over the edge of a cliff. The problem was that many Brexiteers seemed to somehow think they could have their cake and eat it, and so dictate how we leave to the EU and not pay the bill. That is not how a negotiation works, that is not how life works and that is not in the best interests of the country. No wonder Parliament had acted to stop such a disaster. What they haven't done though, despite you seemingly trying to imply the contrary, is stop Brexit. But I guess people can't be forced to investigate the truth and learn a bit of constitutional law, if they want to believe the rhetoric and lies then that's up to each individual. The bottom line is that Parliament is simply using the very powers that the Leave campaign trumpeted in the first place, and the fact that the very same Brexiteers are now deriding them for it is frankly the height of hypocrisy. Andy I implore you to read that two or three times before you reply. Really well written, you probably won't like lots of it but it does set out the situation very well. |
|
2,342 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 26, 2019 21:28:55 GMT
No, it was to advise the government that a slim majority of people who chose to vote wished to leave the European Union. It didn't legislate for anything, and it certainly didn't give any mandate for crashing out of the EU without obtaining a deal. The Article 50 process for leaving the EU is designed to allow time for a deal to be struck, it isn't designed for crashing over the edge of a cliff. The problem was that many Brexiteers seemed to somehow think they could have their cake and eat it, and so dictate how we leave to the EU and not pay the bill. That is not how a negotiation works, that is not how life works and that is not in the best interests of the country. No wonder Parliament had acted to stop such a disaster. What they haven't done though, despite you seemingly trying to imply the contrary, is stop Brexit. But I guess people can't be forced to investigate the truth and learn a bit of constitutional law, if they want to believe the rhetoric and lies then that's up to each individual. The bottom line is that Parliament is simply using the very powers that the Leave campaign trumpeted in the first place, and the fact that the very same Brexiteers are now deriding them for it is frankly the height of hypocrisy. The result of the referendum was the leave the European Union. I didn't post quick enough, have another read fella |
|
5,068 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by Phantom of London on Sept 26, 2019 22:22:49 GMT
A referendum is advisory only, not legally binding. And in any event the result was the views of some people in a wafer thin majority, and it didn't give any mandate for a No Deal Brexit, so stop conflating multiple different things and spreading inaccuracies. Parliament is doing its job,simple as that. How can you say Parliament is doing it’s job when the majority are Remainers, pushing their own agenda and voting, plotting and attempting to block the UK leaving the EU, against the will of their constituents? It’s all very well to say that this is all about preventing No Deal, but it isn’t - it is about stopping Brexit. Parliament could not agree on what kind of deal it wanted when it had a series of votes a few months ago. Parliament failed, it is as simple as that. It had the opportunity to sent Mrs May to Brussels to ask for a certain type of deal and it couldn’t even back a single option on what to tell her to ask for. Parliament has decided nothing since then on what to do about Brexit, other than mandate that the government must ask for an extension. The entire thing is a total farce and nothing, absolutely nothing is happening other than the MPs attempting to drag it out. The way things are going I’m surprised article 50 even made it through Parliament. Anyone remember the party manifestos from 2017 on which these Parliamentarians stood? Asking for 650 constituencies. A referendum is advisory only, not legally binding. And in any event the result was the views of some people in a wafer thin majority, and it didn't give any mandate for a No Deal Brexit, so stop conflating multiple different things and spreading inaccuracies. Parliament is doing its job,simple as that. The referendum was won by a clear 3.78% and nearly 1.27 million votes so that wasn't wafer thin. Wafer thin was something like the 2000 US Presidential Election. I don't particularly want a No Deal Brexit, that isn't good for any sides. But it annoys me when I see people who are sitting in Parliament having been elected for another party than what they currently represent helping to scupper things. I really hope than when they do the new Queen's Speech it says that any MP who switches parties has to face a by-election within 3 months. I'm sure both Tories and Labour who have lost a number of MPs would support it. John Bercow too whilst saying he is upholding Parliamentary has certainly made his views on subjects clear in a way that I never heard previously high regarded speakers such as Bernard Weatherill or Betty Boothroyd do when they held the position. No, it was to advise the government that a slim majority of people who chose to vote wished to leave the European Union. It didn't legislate for anything, and it certainly didn't give any mandate for crashing out of the EU without obtaining a deal. The Article 50 process for leaving the EU is designed to allow time for a deal to be struck, it isn't designed for crashing over the edge of a cliff. The problem was that many Brexiteers seemed to somehow think they could have their cake and eat it, and so dictate how we leave to the EU and not pay the bill. That is not how a negotiation works, that is not how life works and that is not in the best interests of the country. No wonder Parliament had acted to stop such a disaster. What they haven't done though, despite you seemingly trying to imply the contrary, is stop Brexit. But I guess people can't be forced to investigate the truth and learn a bit of constitutional law, if they want to believe the rhetoric and lies then that's up to each individual. The bottom line is that Parliament is simply using the very powers that the Leave campaign trumpeted in the first place, and the fact that the very same Brexiteers are now deriding them for it is frankly the height of hypocrisy. The result of the referendum was the leave the European Union. Theresa May called an general election, with the promised of being the only party able to deliver Brexit. That General Election was fatal for May. A General Election is the will of the people. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 22:57:09 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 22:57:09 GMT
There was a Brexit scenarios that I read which said Boris might resign and recommend to HM that she appoint Jeremy Corbyn as PM to try and force him to be the person to ask Brussels for an extension. But JC would not be able to command a majority so the Tories would do a vote of no confidence to try and force an election that way.
The other scenario suggested was that if JC couldn't form a government or declined to might a consensus candidate emerge who JC would agree to back. This way JC avoids being the person who asks for an extension and you literally would have a caretaker PM. I could not see this happening personally.
If we assume that Boris won't be daft enough to ignore the Benn Act and that the extension is agreed. Once this is done I think opposition parties would be compelled to agree to an election. JC isn't getting any younger so needs to fight an election sooner. THe SNP stand to do "very well" according to the bookies so would roll the dice I think. Three Taxis Swinson has only 18 MPs so would have nothing to lose ( apart from her seat which the SNP may well retake). The Independents would likely be largely wiped out bar a couple of long standing MPs such as Frank Field who may have a huge personal vote.
|
|
1,863 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 26, 2019 23:15:49 GMT
Carrying out an analysis by individual voter* in the referendum and the last 2 General Elections we get the following.
*To carry out a like for like analysis as Parliamentary Majority is not aligned with individual voter preference.
GENERAL ELECTION 2015
All major Parties agreed to hold a referendum on leaving the EU
- Turnout: 30.68m
Therefore, a mandated ‘will of the people' of 30.68m to have a referendum on leaving the EU.
REFERENDUM 2016
- Turnout: 35.58m
- Leave: 17.4m
- Remain: 16.1m
Therefore, a mandated ‘will of the people’ by 1.3m to Leave the EU.
GENERAL ELECTION 2017
I have taken what is in the Party manifestos in the The General Election as a clarification of Leave as per the ‘will of the people'
All Parties agreed to uphold the ‘will of the people' to Leave the EU.
The Conservatives, UKIP and I believe the DUP stated that leaving with No-Deal is an acceptable option.
The Labour Party, SNP, Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens stated we would only Leave if a Deal was in place.
- Turnout: 32.18m
Leave without a Deal
- Conservative: 13.63m
- DUP: 0.29m
- UKIP: 0.59m
Total: 14.51m
Leave only with a Deal
- Labour: 12.88m
- SNP: 0.98m
- Lib Dems: 2.37m
- Plaid Cymru: 0.16m
- Green: 0.52m
Total: 16.91m
Therefore, a mandated ‘will of the people' by 2.4m to only Leave the EU with a Deal.
(I have kept this to the main Parties, 0.76m can be attributed to others which I will assume a 50/50 Split as their Manifesto details are unknown, even if were all Leave with No-Deal the mandate for Leaving with a Deal would remain)
From this analysis we have
- A mandate to Leave the EU (General Election / Referendum)
- A mandate to only Leave the EU only with a Deal (General Election)
At the moment no Party has revoked the referendum requirement to Leave only that we cannot Leave without a Deal.
(The Lib Dems are only saying they would revoke if they got a Parliamentary majority in the next General Election)
Parliament is carrying out its democratic duty by ensuring we accept the ‘will of the people’ i.e we cannot Leave the EU without a Deal being in place.
The stopping of No-Deal by Parliament is therefore Democratic.
This analysis does not have any inference on what a Deal may be as nobody (Voters / Elected Representatives) knows what a Deal means and that is why we are in this mess and at the moment there is no way to ascertain the ‘will of the people’ on what one may be.
Another long post and a lot of numbers as trying to be as factual as possible in my analysis, by the way One Man, Two Guvnors was excellent and just the mindful farce I needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by d'James on Sept 26, 2019 23:16:53 GMT
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Prime Minister was aiming to stir up enough anger so that when it erupts he can declare a state of emergency and do what he likes.
|
|
754 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 23:22:22 GMT
Post by Latecomer on Sept 26, 2019 23:22:22 GMT
I think people need to really think about this in a different way
Dont just say ”but the people voted to leave” in a “stamp my foot” sort of way. What do we actually want a few years down the road?
We need to come together around something that everyone can live with.
The reason Parliament has not voted for a deal is that the Conservatives have been, frankly, rubbish at getting one. They don’t know what they want and they have made no attempt at even working that out. It is not the fault of Parliament that they have not voted for the deals put to them...they have all been RUBBISH! It is not because they all wish to frustrate Brexit (most acknowledge that there should be some sort of Brexit).
So, HOW DO WE SORT IT?
We vote for Labour in the next election, they get a “Norway” style safe Brexit where we are no longer in political union with the EU but we have access to their market (this is the ONLY sort of Brexit that will ever work in Ireland/Northen Ireland.) Then we all vote again for either the deal or remain.
Crashing out is just plain silly as you just have to make a deal again with us in a chaotic situation (far more harm to us that the EU, plus we are an Island so non-frictionless trade causes delays at pinch points ie the sea) The only people who gain from crashing out are currency speculators. Dont let them win!
So in a few years we are either like Norway (I can live with that) or in the EU. I can live with that. Then we have all those conversations with places as to why they wanted sooooo much to leave....what did they hate and why? Was it the EU or was it Austerity?
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 23:26:33 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 23:26:33 GMT
There was a Brexit scenarios that I read which said Boris might resign and recommend to HM that she appoint Jeremy Corbyn as PM to try and force him to be the person to ask Brussels for an extension. But JC would not be able to command a majority so the Tories would do a vote of no confidence to try and force an election that way. The other scenario suggested was that if JC couldn't form a government or declined to might a consensus candidate emerge who JC would agree to back. This way JC avoids being the person who asks for an extension and you literally would have a caretaker PM. I could not see this happening personally. If we assume that Boris won't be daft enough to ignore the Benn Act and that the extension is agreed. Once this is done I think opposition parties would be compelled to agree to an election. JC isn't getting any younger so needs to fight an election sooner. THe SNP stand to do "very well" according to the bookies so would roll the dice I think. Three Taxis Swinson has only 18 MPs so would have nothing to lose ( apart from her seat which the SNP may well retake). The Independents would likely be largely wiped out bar a couple of long standing MPs such as Frank Field who may have a huge personal vote. On the first scenario, the Conservatives would need a two thirds majority and they've got nowhere near that. Whilst this Parliament sits, they do not have control over the date of any election. Knowing that, there would be some kind of confidence and supply arrangement for an interim government instead. The second scenario is riskier, as it might end up with their losing control over any election date if there turns out to be no consensus candidate. As for an election, polls in the last couple of days show Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems in the twenties percentage-wise with only five or so percent between them. A parliament with no majority for anything would be replaced by.....a parliament with no majority for anything. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 23:32:46 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 23:32:46 GMT
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Prime Minister was aiming to stir up enough anger so that when it erupts he can declare a state of emergency and do what he likes. That had crossed my mind, I don't know what the parameters for calling one are. It comes under Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The last one in the UK was apparently in 1974 around the 3 Day Week era. We are almost getting into the Mountbatten coup territory which Press Magnate Cecil King tried to initiate in about 1968. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Sept 26, 2019 23:36:02 GMT
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2019 23:36:02 GMT
There was a Brexit scenarios that I read which said Boris might resign and recommend to HM that she appoint Jeremy Corbyn as PM to try and force him to be the person to ask Brussels for an extension. But JC would not be able to command a majority so the Tories would do a vote of no confidence to try and force an election that way. The other scenario suggested was that if JC couldn't form a government or declined to might a consensus candidate emerge who JC would agree to back. This way JC avoids being the person who asks for an extension and you literally would have a caretaker PM. I could not see this happening personally. If we assume that Boris won't be daft enough to ignore the Benn Act and that the extension is agreed. Once this is done I think opposition parties would be compelled to agree to an election. JC isn't getting any younger so needs to fight an election sooner. THe SNP stand to do "very well" according to the bookies so would roll the dice I think. Three Taxis Swinson has only 18 MPs so would have nothing to lose ( apart from her seat which the SNP may well retake). The Independents would likely be largely wiped out bar a couple of long standing MPs such as Frank Field who may have a huge personal vote. On the first scenario, the Conservatives would need a two thirds majority and they've got nowhere near that. Whilst this Parliament sits, they do not have control over the date of any election. Knowing that, there would be some kind of confidence and supply arrangement for an interim government instead. The second scenario is riskier, as it might end up with their losing control over any election date if there turns out to be no consensus candidate. As for an election, polls in the last couple of days show Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems in the twenties percentage-wise with only five or so percent between them. A parliament with no majority for anything would be replaced by.....a parliament with no majority for anything. I'll throw another scenario in there, JC tries to form a coalition after an election but he isn't acceptable to other parties so we end up with another Labour Leader. Like when Brown said he'd step down after 2010 election and there was talk that someone like David Miliband could be a consensus coalition PM. Or JRM does a Francis Urquhart. |
|
1,863 posts
|
Brexit
Sept 27, 2019 0:01:08 GMT
via mobile
Post by NeilVHughes on Sept 27, 2019 0:01:08 GMT
As per John Major today this may be the loophole to nullify the Benn-Act.
Orders in Council
Orders in Council are made by the Queen acting on the advice of the Privy Council and are approved in person by the monarch.
Some, like those that transfer functions between Ministers of the Crown, are made using powers conferred by an Act of Parliament. Others, like those which make appointments to the civil service, are made by virtue of the royal prerogative. Although Orders in Council must be formally approved in person by the monarch, they are drafted and their substance is controlled by the government.
This process could be used to bypass Parliament as it only involves the Privy Council and the Queen to modify/introduce legislation.
If used it will be Constitutionally explosive as it will directly involve the Queen going against the will of Parliament in stopping a No-Deal Brexit and unprecedented if used this way.
We may need a Government of National Unity sooner than we thought if we believe in protecting Parliamentary Sovereignty, the will of law and from my previous analysis the will of the people. The only thing I can see if Johnson continues to consider options like this the Opposition Parties will coalesce around an anodyne Caretaker PM which is the end of him.
|
|
