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

[chrisp65]

Theresa May bolsters the red, white and blue brexit negotiating team.

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

 

[StefanAVFC]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/06/may-says-she-will-reveal-brexit-plan-before-triggering-article-50?CMP=share_btn_tw

Quote

Theresa May has caved in to pressure to publish a plan for Brexit by the end of March, but laid down a challenge to MPs to vote in favour of triggering article 50.

Labour and rebel Tory MPs declared victory after No 10 accepted an opposition motion calling on the prime minister to reveal the government’s Brexit aims before starting the formal process of leaving the EU.

The government’s move was designed to stave off an embarrassing parliamentary revolt for May, as about 20 Tory MPs had been prepared to defy her by voting with Labour.

However, No 10 insisted it had always intended to publish a Brexit plan and mounted an attempt to turn the debate to its own advantage by tabling an amendment to Labour’s motion, calling for article 50 to be triggered before the end of March.

Somebody is telling porkies...

This stinks. This amendment is basically telling somebody how you're going to kill them, before you do it.

[Awol]

Very shrewd manoeuvre by the Government. Labour thought they'd caught them with the "show us yer plan" ammendment, No 10 counters with a "sure, after you commit to respecting the referendum result".  

Makes no difference in the grand scheme of Article 50 but a clever way to lance the boil of militant Remainers.

[HanoiVillan]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

Very shrewd manoeuvre by the Government. Labour thought they'd caught them with the "show us yer plan" ammendment, No 10 counters with a "sure, after you commit to respecting the referendum result".  

Makes no difference in the grand scheme of Article 50 but a clever way to lance the boil of militant Remainers.

It makes a huge difference. 

Parliament will have absolutely no power to affect the Brexit negotiations once article 50 is invoked. At that point, Parliament is shut out of the process and it simply becomes negotiation between the government and the EU. If Parliament don't have a say before article 50 is invoked, they don't have a say at all. 

[StefanAVFC]

Labour. Well, Labour.

They've backed themselves into this corner by providing zero opposition and fence sitting. Turkeys arguing to be shown how they will be cooked before Christmas inevitably comes.

Edited December 7, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[Davkaus]

No MP with respect for parliamentary sovereignty should be delegating the power of invoking article 50 to the government without knowing the plan in advance, and having a set of rules under which the permission can be revoked if the government doesn't stick to said plan.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Davkaus said:

No MP with respect for parliamentary sovereignty should be delegating the power of invoking article 50 to the government without knowing the plan in advance, and having a set of rules under which the permission can be revoked if the government doesn't stick to said plan.

Exactly. If Labour are quelled by simply being showed the plan, without any input on how it will be implemented then they are the most spineless opposition I've ever seen.

I don't even know who they're supposed to represent anymore. They don't represent me that's for sure. They're targeting a demographic that won't win them votes. There's a huge potential voter base out there (16 million people) who voted remain. By fence sitting with regards to Brexit, they're not doing anything to appeal to those. My vote was up in the air after Brexit and as one of the 48%, I wouldn't go anywhere near them. Only the Lib Dems and the SNP are standing up to the Tories. I'm not saying anyone should campaign on 'subverting the will of the people' but we, as a nation, need to move forward with leaving the EU, united. By saying those who opposed Brexit are "anti-UK", the Tories are doing the exact opposite of that. And the constant labeling of the 48% as 'whingers' and 'remoaners' by the MSM definitely doesn't help that. You can't expect us to come together if you're insulting us all of the time.

I don't expect the Lib Dems to have a resurgence after the tuition fee debacle (although it's fairly unfair to blame them considering they were in a coalition and fees have gone up again since the Tories got a majority) but I think and hope they'll start taking some seats from Labour and the Tories. We need a strong centrist voice in politics as the Tories go further and further right. The people don't want left wing politics.

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

No MP with respect for parliamentary sovereignty should be delegating the power of invoking article 50 to the government without knowing the plan in advance, and having a set of rules under which the permission can be revoked if the government doesn't stick to said plan.

You're talking about government by opposition. Governing is done by the government of the day, including treaty negotiations and international diplomacy / agreements.The opposition parties do not and should not have any kind of veto power over the deal. 

I do find it strange that having voted overwhelmingly to delegate the decision over EU membership to the people, so many MP's are now trying to create obstacles to prevent the Government keeping the very promise that Parliament itself approved. 

Any further vote in the HoC to trigger Article 50 should be a formality, not an opportunity to try and overturn, delay or otherwise obstruct the result. 

[Davkaus]

It's not government by opposition, it;s government by representative democracy. The government doesn't even have the support of their own MPs.

Parliament is sovereign, not Theresa May's cabinet.

[StefanAVFC]

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

Any further vote in the HoC to trigger Article 50 should be a formality, not an opportunity to try and overturn, delay or otherwise obstruct the result. 

This is too simplistic.

The real debate isn't around "trying to and overturn, delay or otherwise obstruct the result", it's about having a plan before enacting the irreversible article 50 and putting the country on a timer. If the Tories had their way, everyone apart from the Tories would be kept totally in the dark about this and that's unacceptable. Parliament need to have a say in how we leave the EU. I think most people who voted to remain are accepting we are leaving and I certainly don't think we should stay at this point, having felt so strongly about it in the immediate aftermath.

However, we need an open conversation with all parties about how we will proceed once article 50 is triggered. Not a fumble around in the dark before an irreversible countdown begins.

Edited December 7, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[Awol]

34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It makes a huge difference. 

Parliament will have absolutely no power to affect the Brexit negotiations once article 50 is invoked. At that point, Parliament is shut out of the process and it simply becomes negotiation between the government and the EU. If Parliament don't have a say before article 50 is invoked, they don't have a say at all. 

Today's vote is not binding so has no bearing on the case in the Supreme Court. It's purely political positioning to make Remainers vote against a motion to "respect the will of the people". 

[Awol]

10 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

This is too simplistic.

The real debate isn't around "trying to and overturn, delay or otherwise obstruct the result", it's about having a plan before enacting the irreversible article 50 and putting the country on a timer. If the Tories had their way, everyone apart from the Tories would be kept totally in the dark about this and that's unacceptable. Parliament need to have a say in how we leave the EU. I think most people who voted to remain are accepting we are leaving and I certainly don't think we should stay at this point, having felt so strongly about it in the immediate aftermath.

However, we need an open conversation with all parties about how we will proceed once article 50 is triggered. Now a fumble around in the dark before an irreversible countdown begins.

Point of order: It's been widely said that Article 50 is reversible once triggered. 

You're also wrong about Parliament needing to have a say in the negotiations because they don't, that's the government's job.

Sure there will be debates in the HoC, but those will be limited in terms of exposing exactly what and where the government is willing to offer or concede in order to get the best deal - i.e. Fullest possible access to the single market while discontinuing the writ of the ECJ and renationalising border control and immigration policy. 

When No10 says they will outline the plan to Parliament before triggering Article 50 don't expect much more detail than that!  

 

[Awol]

13 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

It's not government by opposition, it;s government by representative democracy. The government doesn't even have the support of their own MPs.

Parliament is sovereign, not Theresa May's cabinet.

Representative democracy simply means government by officials elected by the people. 

It doesn't mean the tail wagging the dog in Parliament and it never has. 

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

Point of order: It's been widely said that Article 50 is reversible once triggered. 

Has it?

The most support I've seen for your position is that nobody really knows. Which is unsurprising in this whole debacle. You can cancel it with a change of government for example but there is no clear literature that says you can cancel it on a whim. Hardly 'widely said'

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

You're also wrong about Parliament needing to have a say in the negotiations because they don't, that's the government's job.

Well, screw that then. Get rid of the commons.The government has ultimate power.

Facetiousness aside, I'm clearly talking about the pre-negotiations. The plan. Exactly this:

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

Sure there will be debates in the HoC, but those will be limited in terms of exposing exactly what and where the government is willing to offer or concede in order to get the best deal - i.e. Fullest possible access to the single market while discontinuing the writ of the ECJ and renationalising border control and immigration policy. 

All elected representatives should get a say in the form of a debate to best represent their constituents. Not just be told, "this is the plan" and be expected to accept it.

[snowychap]

8 minutes ago, Awol said:

Point of order: It's been widely said that Article 50 is reversible once triggered.

That it has been 'widely said' does not make it correct (and conversely because it has been accepted by the parties in the court case does not make it incorrect).

Some people (including Tusk himself) may have suggested this but the divisional court's decision was made on the basis that it was irrevocable.

It was mooted that the government may change their position for the appeal hearing but, unless I've missed it, Eadie and Wright didn't put that case, did they?

As per this:

Quote

... the Government has not altered its position on whether notification under Article 50 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU is revocable, arguing that the Supreme Court should proceed on the basis of the agreed understanding between the parties that it isn’t and that, in any event, the correct legal position is “of not practical significance to this appeal“. The High Court made its decision on this basis, but the Lord Chief Justice stated at the time that, if this shared understanding was not correct, the Claimants’ case would be “blown out of the water“. 

 

[sharkyvilla]

I wonder if the best compromise would be for parliament to agree on triggering Article 50 but on the agreement the government actually agrees two deals, one for a harder Brexit and one softer which then can be later voted upon either in parliament, or even a final referendum or General Election.  That way the government can still go in without giving away their position beforehand but leave a final democratic decision over our future direction.

[StefanAVFC]

7 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

I wonder if the best compromise would be for parliament to agree on triggering Article 50 but on the agreement the government actually agrees two deals, one for a harder Brexit and one softer which then can be later voted upon either in parliament, or even a final referendum or General Election.  That way the government can still go in without giving away their position beforehand but leave a final democratic decision over our future direction.

Not going to happen. IMO, and as a staunch 'remainer', there should be no second referendum. The question was asked and answered. The question was **** stupid, but it was asked and answered.

However, a serious conversation needs to be had in parliament about how Brexit will look and how it will affect us.

[Dr_Pangloss]

I don't really understand how brexit can be the 'will of the people' when the exit vote was won by such a tiny margin. It's the will of approximately 51% of the people who voted. 

Edited December 7, 2016 by Dr_Pangloss

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

I don't really understand how brexit can be the 'will of the people' when the exit vote was won by such a tiny margin. It's the will of approximately 51% of the people who voted. 

People's man Farage himself said he'd demand a 2nd ref is the vote was as close as 52-48.

Edited December 7, 2016 by StefanAVFC