Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


blandy

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, ml1dch said:

Obviously we're all fumbling in the dark, as it's never had to happen before (I think?).

But ultimately, a Government is nothing more than the biggest group of elected MPs who are happy to (broadly) vote together. 

The day that a group of MPs who are happy to say "we want Jeremy Corbyn to sit on that side of the chamber rather than Theresa May" is big enough to vote for that, is the day that she doesn't get a choice in the matter anymore.

Although writing that last paragraph made the whole thing feel very far away again...

The bolded isn't right though, surely. I don't know how far you would have to go back in history to find such a 'government' - was Ramsey MacDonald like this? - but a government can't just be a semi-stable political coalition in the legislature. Firstly, there needs to be a 'head of government' who by broad consensus represents the country in international negotiations and then there needs to be a cabinet full of people running the departments that run the schools and the hospitals and the police force and whatever, who serve at the pleasure of the 'head of government', and none of that could be secured by a temporary political coalition in the House of Commons on a single issue between people who otherwise disagree with each other about everything. If May were to lose control like this, the only possible solution would be to call a general election, which has been overdue since at least the start of the year and is now clearly desperately overdue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

The bolded isn't right though, surely. I don't know how far you would have to go back in history to find such a 'government' - was Ramsey MacDonald like this? - but a government can't just be a semi-stable political coalition in the legislature. Firstly, there needs to be a 'head of government' who by broad consensus represents the country in international negotiations and then there needs to be a cabinet full of people running the departments that run the schools and the hospitals and the police force and whatever, who serve at the pleasure of the 'head of government', and none of that could be secured by a temporary political coalition in the House of Commons on a single issue between people who otherwise disagree with each other about everything. If May were to lose control like this, the only possible solution would be to call a general election, which has been overdue since at least the start of the year and is now clearly desperately overdue. 

I'd have that that this is exactly what Ramsay McDonalds National Govts were, he couldn't manage to bring whole parties with him including his own Labour Party

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny to see how many Brexit supporting commentators are keen to discredit the pointless petition by making out it's being manipulated, and quoting things like signatures coming from all over the world, as if British people can't travel, and that you can sign it multiple times. Except you can't, unless you go to the effort of setting up multiple emails, which is a hassle even with automation.

I expect they'll be working on discrediting the march today as well. Sniffy comments of it being like a queue in Waitrose again no doubt, and dying for reduced numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

Funny to see how many Brexit supporting commentators are keen to discredit the pointless petition by making out it's being manipulated, and quoting things like signatures coming from all over the world, as if British people can't travel, and that you can sign it multiple times. Except you can't, unless you go to the effort of setting up multiple emails, which is a hassle even with automation.

I expect they'll be working on discrediting the march today as well. Sniffy comments of it being like a queue in Waitrose again no doubt, and dying for reduced numbers.

I imagine they will be against any vote that has the possibility of being manipulated by foreign actors, or god forbid if one side broke the rules by say illegally over funding the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A PeoplesVote is NOT a Remain standpoint. Or it shouldn't be anyway.

A PeoplesVote by its very nature is completely neutral. The most ardent Brexiteer, fearing their Brexit is being taken away or weakened, should welcome a 2nd Referendum. It is the chance for EVERYONE'S viewpoint to be put to the public (clearly this time) and it to be enacted the very next day. So if No Deal is the most popular option we do that the day after the vote.

Fear that people have changed their mind/become wiser/recognised they can't break rules this time/seen evidence of impact already/more youth voting is the only reason not to have a 2nd vote. Preventing that because you're afraid of your public's answer is Undemocratic.

We still vote to Leave and 90% of people would accept it.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, jackbauer24 said:

A PeoplesVote is NOT a Remain standpoint. Or it shouldn't be anyway.

A PeoplesVote by its very nature is completely neutral. The most ardent Brexiteer, fearing their Brexit is being taken away or weakened, should welcome a 2nd Referendum. It is the chance for EVERYONE'S viewpoint to be put to the public (clearly this time) and it to be enacted the very next day. So if No Deal is the most popular option we do that the day after the vote.

Fear that people have changed their mind/become wiser/recognised they can't break rules this time/seen evidence of impact already/more youth voting is the only reason not to have a 2nd vote. Preventing that because you're afraid of your public's answer is Undemocratic.

We still vote to Leave and 90% of people would accept it.

This is difficult for me. 

We have a 2nd ref and no deal wins (in the theoretical vote) then we would have to do it, and with the public creeping towards no deal as an outcome (terrifyingly) it could happen. 

The responsible thing would be to keep no deal off a ballot but I don’t know how it could happen. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't think of any 'fair' way to word a second referendum, if (a) No Deal remains an option and/or (b) Parliament cannot agree on a 'soft Brexit' alternative, and/or (c) 'Remain' is an option. 

A three-way No Deal/Agreed Deal/Remain choice would unfairly favour Remain, as the other two would split the Leave vote. 

However, if No Deal is decisively ruled out, and May's (or an alternative agreed) Deal is put up as a binary choice against Leave, it might be a fair test. But the chances of Parliament agreeing any such deal seem impossibly remote. Which HAS to put No Deal back on the table, OR revoke A50 indefinitely. 

Alternatively, if we accept that no soft Brexit deal can ever be agreed, we could have a binary No Deal v. Remain referendum. I would hope that Remain would win that one, but who knows? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

 

A three-way No Deal/Agreed Deal/Remain choice would unfairly favour Remain, as the other two would split the Leave vote. 

It wouldn't because you’d use STV

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

It wouldn't because you’d use STV

It ought to. It probably wouldn't.

People apparently thought AV was too complicated, ffs.

Edited by Davkaus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It ought to. It probably wouldn't.

People apparently thought AV was too complicated, ffs.

People use STV in the European Elections all the time, it’s not even introducing something new

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

This is difficult for me. 

We have a 2nd ref and no deal wins (in the theoretical vote) then we would have to do it, and with the public creeping towards no deal as an outcome (terrifyingly) it could happen. 

The responsible thing would be to keep no deal off a ballot but I don’t know how it could happen. 

Whilst I agree it's a terrifying outcome I still believe it's only fair. You can't not have a vote because you're scared of the answer, from whichever side of the argument you're on.

The difference here is people would know EXACTLY what they were voting for so if they still make the wrong decision then so be it! I'll sit back and watch the world burn. I do suspect though that now Remain would win and by some margin. I've not heard of any people who would genuinely change from voting remain to leave (whilst acknowledging some remainers just want it done) given the opportunity. This isn't case with original Leave voters. Add in age of new voters, evidence of fraud, evidence of impact on pound, health service and industry and I think we'd make the right choice as a country. If we STILL didn't, I think I'd genuinely Leave the country myself! Couldn't be surrounded by that much idiocy. I can understand naivety from the initial vote (not helped by the ambiguity in 'leave') but I'd struggle with someone still making that choice now.

Look at petition site - 365k odd want No Deal. 4.2m odd want Revoke. The tide has turned, people want the madness to stop.

Edited by jackbauer24
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

 However, if No Deal is decisively ruled out, and May's (or an alternative agreed) Deal is put up as a binary choice against Leave, it might be a fair test. 

I've read and re-read this and still don't really understand what you mean.

No-deal is ruled out and then leave is put up against leave?

Is it just a typo or have I missed something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mjmooney said:

I can't think of any 'fair' way to word a second referendum, if (a) No Deal remains an option and/or (b) Parliament cannot agree on a 'soft Brexit' alternative, and/or (c) 'Remain' is an option. 

A three-way No Deal/Agreed Deal/Remain choice would unfairly favour Remain, as the other two would split the Leave vote. 

However, if No Deal is decisively ruled out, and May's (or an alternative agreed) Deal is put up as a binary choice against Leave, it might be a fair test. But the chances of Parliament agreeing any such deal seem impossibly remote. Which HAS to put No Deal back on the table, OR revoke A50 indefinitely. 

Alternatively, if we accept that no soft Brexit deal can ever be agreed, we could have a binary No Deal v. Remain referendum. I would hope that Remain would win that one, but who knows? 

This seems like the issue to me. What exactly would a second referendum ask?

it can’t  just be leave or remain again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

This seems like the issue to me. What exactly would a second referendum ask?

it can’t  just be leave or remain again. 

Well, it could. But if Leave won again, we'd just be back where we were. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mjmooney said:

Well, it could. But if Leave won again, we'd just be back where we were. 

Well yeah which is why it can’t really be that choice. I’m not sure it can really be only two options this time (if there was a this time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Well yeah which is why it can’t really be that choice. I’m not sure it can really be only two options this time (if there was a this time)

I disagree. It has to be a binary choice, and the reason I'm not totally in favour of a PV - don't ask a question unless you know the answer. It's a cop out under normal circs. You have to have some version of leave on the table and the other option has to be remain. It can't (shouldn't) be a complex 3 way eliminator or anything that isn't solved in one go. straight choice A or B. And this is a fair argument from leave people, that we did that. Leave won. It's undeniably the case. Their argument has merit. Yes cheating, lying, interference...etc. but "we'' hold a ref and promise to implement the outcome is a powerful argument.

Ideally parliament should sort it out. There ought to be a soft leave version they could find a majority for, and based on the commitment to leave, once they get there, that should, by process, be what happens.

Basically there was a ref and "Leave, just about" won. "Leave, just about" should be the logical outcome - so SM, CU and out. Not No deal, not May's deal, but some properly close, but still "out" in law is where parliament should have (and maybe still will), get to.

May's utter incompetence and narrow minded, indecisive, manoeuvring antics, the immediate (relatively) triggering article 50, a whole succession of mistakes have let to where the shitshow has got us, plus all the lies., of course. And that's the counter, I suppose. "Leave has not remotely turned out to be what was on the tin, can we ask you to have a democratic vote, now the truth is available? Also a powerful argument and also democratic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, snowychap said:

@ml1dch

This is from a Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report (pdf link) :

Obviously, if there were another vote/motion to pass that clearly indicated that someone else, e.g. the Leader of the Opposition, would have the confidence in the house then this ought to be taken out of her hands, i.e. this should force even someone of immense obduracy to give in.

But who would allow that motion to be moved as the Government control the business of the House of Commons? That is unless or until someone gets the Standing Orders changed...

An insight, perhaps, as to how this current government might view the procedure might be gained from this bit of evidence from The Leader of the House's to the committee:

 

All very interesting links, thanks - let's hope we get to find out whether political theory and political reality match up sooner rather than later.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â