ChatterBank0 min ago
Mps Plot Dozens Of Brexit Amendments
http://
Can’t help wondering why they voted pretty much overwhelmingly to put the question to the public in the first place …. unless, of course, they were confident of a different response. Nah … couldn’t be that, could it? What a disingenuous bunch they are!
Can’t help wondering why they voted pretty much overwhelmingly to put the question to the public in the first place …. unless, of course, they were confident of a different response. Nah … couldn’t be that, could it? What a disingenuous bunch they are!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Thy thought us plebs would not dare to have an opinion contrary to the elite. That's why they thought they would win. That's why they are desperate to do anything to naff it up, water it down or make it so tricky us plebs get fed up and forget all about it.
The likes of Gina Miller use a love of the law and democracy as an excuse. She has the right to take this issue to court but make no mistake. It is just an excuse and ruse.
The likes of Gina Miller use a love of the law and democracy as an excuse. She has the right to take this issue to court but make no mistake. It is just an excuse and ruse.
We only got a referendum vote because Cameron was feeling pressure from UKIP and his own Eurosceptic faction. He was frightened of losing seats and letting Labour in, and he wanted to shut up awkward squadHe won the battle by getting elected with a majority, but lost the war by losing everything else.
Our former Prime Minister was indeed expecting a different result thus no plan was in place.If at the end of the day Brexit becomes delayed or even scrapped, in the House of Lords,which I wouldn't discount despite assurances to the contrary, then people will never bother to vote on anything,even eletions,ever again.
I don't understand danny's post. The Supreme Court excluded the Scottish Parliament from having any more say than Parliament at Westminster allows it to have; but this restriction applies to MSPs and not Scottish MPs. So of course they should be allowed to table amendments as they like.
It depends on the Bill introduced; I would like to think that a version I proposed towards the end of last year is basically enough, as in "Be it enacted etc etc that Parliament herewith grants HM Government permission to leave the EU as set out under Article 50 of the Treaties of the EU." -- and done.
It depends on the Bill introduced; I would like to think that a version I proposed towards the end of last year is basically enough, as in "Be it enacted etc etc that Parliament herewith grants HM Government permission to leave the EU as set out under Article 50 of the Treaties of the EU." -- and done.
there are rules for amendments they can't just sprinkle it. Anyway the they'll all be ping ponged away. Nothing to see here. Read the BBC's version of "what happens next": http://
Danny, the wee un is talking about the westminster SNP MPs
Danny, the wee un is talking about the westminster SNP MPs
On the bright side, if that does end up happening then maybe people will finally start to question how Parliamentary democracy in this country actually works. It wouldn't be representative if MPs ended up frustrating the will of the people.
That's different from saying that Parliament shouldn't be involved in starting the process -- just that it should be in the end an easy Bill to pass.
That's different from saying that Parliament shouldn't be involved in starting the process -- just that it should be in the end an easy Bill to pass.
I think it's fair of me to say that I'd have mixed feelings if MPs did block Brexit ... but that's partly selfishness speaking.
On the other hand, what *is* true is that Opposition parties have a right and even duty to represent the 40% or so of us who didn't want to leave the EU. That doesn't necessarily mean voting against the triggering of Article 50, but it does mean that they ought to at least discuss whether Theresa May's direction is the right one, and offer up alternatives or insist that the government defend its position. Doing that doesn't make them treasonous or whatever -- it's their job.
Anyhow, we have some level of clarity about how things are to proceed from here. A (hopefully fairly short) bill in Parliament, passing without too much trouble in the end, followed by the necessary scrutiny of however the Government wants to take things forward from there, and whatever awaits us on the end of it let it be, at least, something that more than just a handful of people had a role in shaping.
On the other hand, what *is* true is that Opposition parties have a right and even duty to represent the 40% or so of us who didn't want to leave the EU. That doesn't necessarily mean voting against the triggering of Article 50, but it does mean that they ought to at least discuss whether Theresa May's direction is the right one, and offer up alternatives or insist that the government defend its position. Doing that doesn't make them treasonous or whatever -- it's their job.
Anyhow, we have some level of clarity about how things are to proceed from here. A (hopefully fairly short) bill in Parliament, passing without too much trouble in the end, followed by the necessary scrutiny of however the Government wants to take things forward from there, and whatever awaits us on the end of it let it be, at least, something that more than just a handful of people had a role in shaping.
I'm not sure what they think is available for discussion. The type of exit is clear, it's the one where a country triggers Article 50 and then awaits the EU to getting around to oking it.
All the rest isn't about exiting it's about the relationship and agreements post exit.
No one knows what can be negotiated/agreed around the table for that, for we can not be sure how vindictive the EU can be to a resigning member of their control group. One would hope they'd go for a win/win agreement (which would benefit them more than us) but one can not tell. Presently they are still mainly continuing with threats they hope will eventually stop the process of returning our sovereignty to us.
In any case what do we threaten to do if we don't like what they come up with ? Threaten to stay and thus give them, and those who wish to deny the will of the nation, what they voted for ? It's a nonsense.
All that needs to be clarified before the government is allowed to get on with it is confirmation is that the return of out nation's sovereignty is not open to negotiation, which includes total border control (so 'free movement' is gone), and beyond that, those at the table are already out to get the best possible deal for all anyway so further input isn't helpful. Before that, there is no more detail that can be given since during negotiations details change as compromises are made, anyway and any stated aims may well be dropped.
As for putting the end agreement to the public or the House for that matter, that may be dressed up to sound reasonable but it is effectively the old EU trick of saying, "You gave the wrong result last time, we don't approve, try to vote differently this time". The hope being that few would change from 'remain' to 'leave' simply because they knew the decision had already been made and so ethically should stand, but would relish the chance of trying to stop it again: whilst there will be a proportion that had the courage to vote for change last time, but since folk don't like change may well wimp out having been scared by remain fear tales, if asked again. If is a clear attempt to derail the people's decision, and would leave folk in no doubt that public opinion is simply not valued by the elite. If elites spread enough fear they should find the people vote as they are told to.
All the rest isn't about exiting it's about the relationship and agreements post exit.
No one knows what can be negotiated/agreed around the table for that, for we can not be sure how vindictive the EU can be to a resigning member of their control group. One would hope they'd go for a win/win agreement (which would benefit them more than us) but one can not tell. Presently they are still mainly continuing with threats they hope will eventually stop the process of returning our sovereignty to us.
In any case what do we threaten to do if we don't like what they come up with ? Threaten to stay and thus give them, and those who wish to deny the will of the nation, what they voted for ? It's a nonsense.
All that needs to be clarified before the government is allowed to get on with it is confirmation is that the return of out nation's sovereignty is not open to negotiation, which includes total border control (so 'free movement' is gone), and beyond that, those at the table are already out to get the best possible deal for all anyway so further input isn't helpful. Before that, there is no more detail that can be given since during negotiations details change as compromises are made, anyway and any stated aims may well be dropped.
As for putting the end agreement to the public or the House for that matter, that may be dressed up to sound reasonable but it is effectively the old EU trick of saying, "You gave the wrong result last time, we don't approve, try to vote differently this time". The hope being that few would change from 'remain' to 'leave' simply because they knew the decision had already been made and so ethically should stand, but would relish the chance of trying to stop it again: whilst there will be a proportion that had the courage to vote for change last time, but since folk don't like change may well wimp out having been scared by remain fear tales, if asked again. If is a clear attempt to derail the people's decision, and would leave folk in no doubt that public opinion is simply not valued by the elite. If elites spread enough fear they should find the people vote as they are told to.
Depends on where the talk is coming from, though. A lot of the "death to Brexit" calls are coming primarily from Brexit supporters who are understandably, but overly, concerned that Remain MPs might veto this. But there is simply no sign that this is the case. As long as the Tory party shows up, Brexit passes no matter what Labour, the Lib Dems and SNP etc do. And a fair number of Labour MPs will vote in favour of Brexit -- so that the panicking is not really justified. You might even call it a "project" by some of trying to make the public "fear" what would happen if MPs are given a say...
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.