The Thread of BREXIT

[Scot Dutchy]

Bollocks.

[rainbow]

Maybe Parliament should have a vote, to end the war in Syria?
Or have a vote to make the pound worth two Euros?
Or vote to abolish Alzheimer's ?
Or vote to make that thing on Mars start up sending data?

It makes just as much sense, as having a vote on the terms of withdrawing from Europe.
They can vote for everything they fucking want, but they can't make it happen.

Parliament had a vote on leaving Europe. They had a full debate on the Brexit referendum.
And passed it overwhelmingly.
They didn't vote to have another vote. They voted to ask the country if it wanted to stay or leave.

...so then it was an opinion poll.

As interpreted by legal minds that it can't be binding unless passed by parliament.

The problem with the Pommy system is that it is based on an unwritten constitution. That doesn't mean that it can be changed by a parliamentary vote or a referendum, but it relies on precedent.
Here there is no precedent, so the UK does indeed have a constitutional crisis.

This could've been solved easily had the Poms bothered to create a constitutional document, as is done in the civilised world, but I guess they thought they were above such niceties.

[Brian Peacock]

Maybe Parliament should have a vote, to end the war in Syria?
Or have a vote to make the pound worth two Euros?
Or vote to abolish Alzheimer's ?
Or vote to make that thing on Mars start up sending data?

It makes just as much sense, as having a vote on the terms of withdrawing from Europe.
They can vote for everything they fucking want, but they can't make it happen.

Parliament had a vote on leaving Europe. They had a full debate on the Brexit referendum.
And passed it overwhelmingly.
They didn't vote to have another vote. They voted to ask the country if it wanted to stay or leave.
Not, "do you want us to have another debate?"
But, "do you want to leave ? "

So Parliament HAS debated it and given it it's assent.
The clear understanding in that debate, was that if the vote is to leave, the government negotiates to leave. Not to have a debate.

The vote, if it is to happen, which is far from certain at the moment, would be a vote for/agin an Act Of Parliament authorising the government to invoke the Article 50 process as laid down in the EU charter, and that would necessarily follow some debate of not only the pros-and-cons of that action but what the government were hoping to achieve beyond simplistic platitudes about what's best for Britain.

The time for 'Parliament and the electorate don't need to worry their pretty little heads about it' is over. It's time to get serious. This concerns all the citizens of Britain, and all the future citizens of Britain, not just those that voted for/agin leaving the EU in the referendum.

You are also labouring under the common misconception that Article 50 involves or necessitates some form of negotiation. It doesn't. You've been misinformed. Article 50 is an agreed, fixed and structured process by which member-states withdraw from the EU. Only once that process is complete and Britain has handed back their keys to the cocktail cabinet can negotiation between Britain, as a non-EU sovereign state, and the EU, as a federal alliance of 26 nations, take place. Article 50 isn't about securing trade deals or free-passes for the financial sector, it's about closing offices, shutting down lines of communication, re-assigning responsibilities, withdrawing MEPs and commissioners and their staff, and the like. It's an administrative process, not a political-economic one.

[Brian Peacock]

Maybe Parliament should have a vote, to end the war in Syria?
Or have a vote to make the pound worth two Euros?
Or vote to abolish Alzheimer's ?
Or vote to make that thing on Mars start up sending data?

It makes just as much sense, as having a vote on the terms of withdrawing from Europe.
They can vote for everything they fucking want, but they can't make it happen.

Parliament had a vote on leaving Europe. They had a full debate on the Brexit referendum.
And passed it overwhelmingly.
They didn't vote to have another vote. They voted to ask the country if it wanted to stay or leave.

...so then it was an opinion poll.

As interpreted by legal minds that it can't be binding unless passed by parliament.

The problem with the Pommy system is that it is based on an unwritten constitution. That doesn't mean that it can be changed by a parliamentary vote or a referendum, but it relies on precedent.
Here there is no precedent, so the UK does indeed have a constitutional crisis.

This could've been solved easily had the Poms bothered to create a constitutional document, as is done in the civilised world, but I guess they thought they were above such niceties.

I agree on the constitutional point, but there is a precedent here. Parliament had to enact a law allowing the government to take us into the EEC, as it was then, so an Act of Parliament appears to be needed to take us out again.

Still, mistermack shouldn't confuse votes on resolutions (This House urges the government to end the war in Syria, cure Alzheimer's, devalue the pound, and make that thing on Mars start sending data.) with votes on Bills of statute which allow the government to act in the name of, and with the authority of, Parliament.

[rainbow]

If there is a free vote in both houses, it is unlikely that they will go for EXIT.

[Svartalf]

Well, maybe they will if they care to be reelected... those hailing from England and Wales.

[mistermack]

You are also labouring under the common misconception that Article 50 involves or necessitates some form of negotiation. It doesn't. You've been misinformed. Article 50 is an agreed, fixed and structured process by which member-states withdraw from the EU. Only once that process is complete and Britain has handed back their keys to the cocktail cabinet can negotiation between Britain, as a non-EU sovereign state, and the EU, as a federal alliance of 26 nations, take place. Article 50 isn't about securing trade deals or free-passes for the financial sector, it's about closing offices, shutting down lines of communication, re-assigning responsibilities, withdrawing MEPs and commissioners and their staff, and the like. It's an administrative process, not a political-economic one.

That's bollocks. Even the EU leaders disagree with that bollocks. Otherwise, why do they keep repeating the mantra that they won't enter into discussions on trade deals till after article 50 is INVOKED. Not "only once that process is complete"

Any more bollocks you care to invent for the discussion?

[mistermack]

If there is a free vote in both houses, it is unlikely that they will go for EXIT.

Labour have said that they won't stand in it's way. ( mind you, they are probably lying ) and the Lords can be dealt with by the Parliament Act, and also by appointing 1,000 Brexiteer new lords.

If I was in power, I'd strip the House of Lords of it's legal rights, and stop their expenses, and sell peerages every week on ebay to the highest bidders. Let everyone be a lord. Or a duke, or whatever they want. Silly cunts.

[rainbow]

Well, maybe they will if they care to be reelected... those hailing from England and Wales.

Remember the vote was very close, and in a constituency system like the UK, MPs will vote according to what the people in their constituency want.

[Brian Peacock]

You are also labouring under the common misconception that Article 50 involves or necessitates some form of negotiation. It doesn't. You've been misinformed. Article 50 is an agreed, fixed and structured process by which member-states withdraw from the EU. Only once that process is complete and Britain has handed back their keys to the cocktail cabinet can negotiation between Britain, as a non-EU sovereign state, and the EU, as a federal alliance of 26 nations, take place. Article 50 isn't about securing trade deals or free-passes for the financial sector, it's about closing offices, shutting down lines of communication, re-assigning responsibilities, withdrawing MEPs and commissioners and their staff, and the like. It's an administrative process, not a political-economic one.

That's bollocks. Even the EU leaders disagree with that bollocks. Otherwise, why do they keep repeating the mantra that they won't enter into discussions on trade deals till after article 50 is INVOKED. Not "only once that process is complete"

Any more bollocks you care to invent for the discussion?

You should double check you sources and their interpretation of the facts. Article 50 negotiations concern the schedule of disengagement. Soundings regarding trade can happen once that process is underway for sure, but negotiations on trade etc can only start once Britain is officially an EU-independent sovereign state. What the government cannot do is make future trade arrangements a condition of withdraw - neither can the EU - trade and withdraw are totally separate issues. Once the A50 process is invoked the UK gives up the right and power to influence EU decisions and processes concerning the operation and structure of the EU, but appart from this relinquishment of influence it remains a full member of the EU, with all that that entails, untill the process is complete.

One suspects that the reason the Tories don't want to lay their objectives before Parliament is because they currently have little to no clue what they actually are.

[Brian Peacock]

If there is a free vote in both houses, it is unlikely that they will go for EXIT.

Labour have said that they won't stand in it's way. ( mind you, they are probably lying ) and the Lords can be dealt with by the Parliament Act, and also by appointing 1,000 Brexiteer new lords.

If I was in power, I'd strip the House of Lords of it's legal rights, and stop their expenses, and sell peerages every week on ebay to the highest bidders. Let everyone be a lord. Or a duke, or whatever they want. Silly cunts.

Why not an elected second chamber?

[Scot Dutchy]

One suspects that the reason the Tories don't want to lay their objectives before Parliament is because they currently have little to no clue what they actually are.

Exactly. The three stooges living the life of Riley in Somerset still have not come up with any plan. They are:

[mistermack]

If there is a free vote in both houses, it is unlikely that they will go for EXIT.

Labour have said that they won't stand in it's way. ( mind you, they are probably lying ) and the Lords can be dealt with by the Parliament Act, and also by appointing 1,000 Brexiteer new lords.

If I was in power, I'd strip the House of Lords of it's legal rights, and stop their expenses, and sell peerages every week on ebay to the highest bidders. Let everyone be a lord. Or a duke, or whatever they want. Silly cunts.

Why not an elected second chamber?

Why have a second chamber at all? An elected one with the power to delay is pretty much as bad, if not worse, than an un-elected one with the power to delay.
You vote people in. Let them do what they want.
You've got committees all over the place. Second chamber? It's more like the twenty second chamber.

In the end, what's the point in having a government that can't do what it wants?
That's madness. Or America.

[Scot Dutchy]

Bollocks. We have an elected First Chamber. Elect them at different times.

[pErvinalia]

Yep. Our upper house (Senate) is a vital part of our democracy.