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

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, Awol said:

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. 

I think we're in the danger of straying in to the territory of a discussion about parliamentary sovereignty, the Royal prerogative and the balance between the Executive and the rest of Parliament. Whether that discussion is about what is the case (de facto or in law), what was the case or what should be the case, it's all pretty debateable and not really helpful to be asserting a point by talking in terms of tails and dogs.

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I think we're in the danger of straying in to the territory of a discussion about parliamentary sovereignty, the Royal prerogative and the balance between the Executive and the rest of Parliament. Whether that discussion is about what is the case (de facto or in law), what was the case or what should be the case, it's all pretty debateable and not really helpful to be asserting a point by talking in terms of tails and dogs.

Okay. The opposition doesn't get to dictate to the government how it will or will not conduct itself during negotiations with, for example, a foreign power.

I was replying to a point suggesting that the opposition should effectively be able to veto  the Government's authority to negotiate our exit terms post Article 50, if it didn't like what the Government was doing. I was trying to say in simple terms that it doesn't work like that. 

 

[Awol]

17 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. 

In the context of the vote that is a majority, no? I'm not sure it can be interpreted in any other way than being 'the will of the people' on the basis of a democratically obtained majority. 

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

Okay. The opposition doesn't get to dictate to the government how it will or will not conduct itself during negotiations with, for example, a foreign power.

I was replying to a point suggesting that the opposition should effectively be able to veto  the Government's authority to negotiate our exit terms post Article 50, if it didn't like what the Government was doing. I was trying to say in simple terms that it doesn't work like that.

There are a couple of things in there:

Firstly, you appear to be substituting 'the opposition' for Parliament and that's not helpful.

Secondly, I think Stefan's point about Parliament needing to have a say was more in terms of legitimizing the process whereby a new settlement is made on behalf of UK citizens rather than a submission on prerogative powers.

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, Awol said:

In the context of the vote that is a majority, no? I'm not sure it can be interpreted in any other way than being 'the will of the people' on the basis of a democratically obtained majority. 

That's not the intent behind the use of the phrase, though, is it?
 It isn't being used to talk about a 'general will' (for which read the will of the majority that is then accepted by the rest) but to suggest that there is only one valid 'will' and to hold any other opinion is to hold an invalid and even illegitimate one. That not to be 'pro-Brexit' is to be against the will of the people.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, snowychap said:

That not to be 'pro-Brexit' is to be against the will of the people.

Yep. The government is doing absolutely nothing to unite a very divided nation. 

[Awol]

19 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There are a couple of things in there:

Firstly, you appear to be substituting 'the opposition' for Parliament and that's not helpful.

Secondly, I think Stefan's point about Parliament needing to have a say was more in terms of legitimizing the process whereby a new settlement is made on behalf of UK citizens rather than a submission on prerogative powers.

Parliament (HoC) consists of the governing party and the opposition parties so talking about the opposition's inability to dictate to the government is valid - if they could then the opposition would be in government, such is the system.

I'm not against Parliament giving assent to A50, but I do think it's wrong to link that to the government providing Parliament with a detailed negotiating plan. That would be idiotic and imo the only reason Remainers are pushing for that is to try and ensure a rotten negotiation and subsequent poor deal for the UK - at which point they'd demand another referendum.

I'm afraid they are a thoroughly cynical bunch who would do anything to undermine a successful outcome - and thereby salvage their own political careers.

 

 

[StefanAVFC]

22 minutes ago, Awol said:

imo the only reason Remainers are pushing for that is to try and ensure a rotten negotiation and subsequent poor deal for the UK - at which point they'd demand another referendum.

That's total nonsense akin to conspiracy.

I'm a staunch remainer and I want open discussions to get the best deal for Britain. The remain viewpoint is shifting from '2nd referendum' to 'best deal possible'. I admire the Lib Dems for standing up for it, but I disagree. Not worth the hassle. 

By refusing to be clear with the 'plan' May is pandering only to the 52%, not to the rest of the country she is supposed to represent.

Edited December 7, 2016 by StefanAVFC

[Chindie]

The idea that 'Remainers' are trying to secure a bad deal to get another referendum is Breitbart worthy bollocks, sorry.

[snowychap]

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

Parliament (HoC) consists of the governing party and the opposition parties so talking about the opposition's inability to dictate to the government is valid - if they could then the opposition would be in government, such is the system.

It is the duty of Parliament (and the House of Commons as the elected chamber is the one primarily responsible) to hold the Executive to account. That burden does not simply fall upon the shoulders of opposition parties and their members and to portray it in those terms is a mistake.

31 minutes ago, Awol said:

I'm not against Parliament giving assent to A50, but I do think it's wrong to link that to the government providing Parliament with a detailed negotiating plan.

I happen to agree that there is a difference between talk about invoking Article 50 and talk about the negotiations for withdrawal (and subsequent negotiations about ongoing and future relationships). The former should be a matter of fact (i.e. whether or not some sort of legislation is necessary) that needs to be decided upon by the Courts and the second is a matter of opinion as to whether you think it's necessary, not necessary or 'idiotic'. The two subjects should not be elided in to one.

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

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". 

So if it passes, I can rely on you and The Daily Express to say 'oh well, it was only symbolic' in a month or so can I?

Pull the other one. 

[Awol]

34 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

So if it passes, I can rely on you and The Daily Express to say 'oh well, it was only symbolic' in a month or so can I?

Pull the other one. 

Thanks for the Express jibe, but that aside even Lord Pannick had said it's meaningless.

It's a political device designed to embarrass and pressurise Remain supporting MP's, nothing more. 

[peterms]

2 hours ago, Awol said:

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.

The negotiations are conducted by the executive, ie ministers and the civil servants working for them.  The package as negotiated is then put before Parliament as a draft Bill, to be voted on - eg the Act which took us into the EEC in the first place.  Parliament as a whole most certainly does have the power of veto over draft legislation.  That's how it works.

2 hours ago, Awol said:

having voted overwhelmingly to delegate the decision over EU membership to the people

This is quite false.  Parliament specifically determined that the referendum was advisory, as we all know.  If they had delegated the decision, they would have determined that the referendum was to be decision-making, and not advisory.  That's a simple matter of recorded fact, which I don't believe anyone actually contests.  Some argue that it should be treated as though it was determinative and not advisory; that is a political position.

[Awol]

49 minutes ago, Chindie said:

The idea that 'Remainers' are trying to secure a bad deal to get another referendum is Breitbart worthy bollocks, sorry.

It's political logic. Hardcore Remainers want to overturn Brexit, the only realistic way to do that is through a second referendum which they are pushing for on the terms of the deal. 

The only way to get that is through massive public pressure, the only way to generate that is if the deal is terrible.

Ergo, the strategy would be to help ensure a terrible settlement for the UK. To do that you would want to weaken the UK negotiating position as far as possible, and you do that by exposing as much of the Government's strategy as possible in advance.

You might call that bollocks, or a conspiracy theory or whatever. I'd call it politics. 

[Awol]

5 minutes ago, peterms said:

The negotiations are conducted by the executive, ie ministers and the civil servants working for them.  The package as negotiated is then put before Parliament as a draft Bill, to be voted on - eg the Act which took us into the EEC in the first place.  Parliament as a whole most certainly does have the power of veto over draft legislation.  That's how it works.

This is quite false.  Parliament specifically determined that the referendum was advisory, as we all know.  If they had delegated the decision, they would have determined that the referendum was to be decision-making, and not advisory.  That's a simple matter of recorded fact, which I don't believe anyone actually contests.  Some argue that it should be treated as though it was determinative and not advisory; that is a political position.

"We shall implement what you decide" - D Cameron, in Government vote Remain propaganda issued to every household in the land. 

What does that mean if not that they were letting the public decide through the mechanism of the referendum? 

I understand it wasn't legally binding, but it's beyond disingenuous to suggest the intent wasn't to act on the result. 

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, Awol said:

"We shall implement what you decide" - D Cameron, in Government vote Remain propaganda issued to every household in the land. 

What does that mean if not that they were letting the public decide through the mechanism of the referendum? 

I understand it wasn't legally binding, but it's beyond disingenuous to suggest the intent wasn't to act on the result. 

There's quite a difference between a pledge from a politician, and what was actually passed by Parliament.  If it was desired to make the referendum binding, then the way to do that was via the legislation setting it up.  It was specifically decided not to do so, and Cameron's comment does not make it otherwise.

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, Awol said:

"We shall implement what you decide" - D Cameron, in Government vote Remain propaganda issued to every household in the land. 

What does that mean if not that they were letting the public decide through the mechanism of the referendum? 

I understand it wasn't legally binding, but it's beyond disingenuous to suggest the intent wasn't to act on the result. 

For whether one ought to rely upon what governments say in pamphlets, see Equitable Life.

Otherwise, Pannick brought up the thing in the Supreme Court yesterday of what Lidington said during the parliamentary debates: It (the Bill/Act) makes no provision for what follows.

[ml1dch]

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

"We shall implement what you decide" - D Cameron, in Government vote Remain propaganda issued to every household in the land. 

What does that mean if not that they were letting the public decide through the mechanism of the referendum? 

I understand it wasn't legally binding, but it's beyond disingenuous to suggest the intent wasn't to act on the result. 

It's probably not worth reminding you that the government that pledged to implement the decision is no longer the government calling the shots.

[peterms]

Also worth pointing out that "We shall implement what you decide" does absolutely nothing to clarify anything about timescales, conditions, what exactly we would be leaving and what we would continue to be part of, or pay in to, or choose to be subject to.  It's all these things which people are quite rightly demanding to know about, because no clear and comprehensible position was put forward on any of this, and still hasn't been.

To roll these things up and call them a negotiating position which must be kept secret for fear of strengthening the EU countries we seek to negotiate with, is laughable.  The very start of a negotiation is to outline what you want.

The fear of doing so is nothing to do with weakening our position (if it could possible be weakened any more than by serving A50), and everything to do with realising that there is no proposition, no combination of outcomes, that will satisfy even a majority of the leave camp, never mind a majority of the country.  It's an attempt to hold together the warring wings of the tory party, while the government stumbles from one fiasco to another, hoping that something will turn up.  No strategy, no vision, no direction, no clue.

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

No strategy, no vision, no direction, no clue.

I'd also add 'no unity' to this list.

At the end of the day, we are all British and 48% of us voted on the losing side yet there is no attempt to engage us in the debate. We have to agree with an opaque 'plan' or be 'anti-UK'. 

Opposition, Lib-Dems and SNP have every right to call the government out on this nonsense.