He Who Saves His Country Does Not...
Society & Culture0 min ago
Parliament Cannot Stop No Deal - From Someone Formerly Holding The Contrary View...
34 Answers
https:/
So it's up to the EUSSR to get reasonable.
So it's up to the EUSSR to get reasonable.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. 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.
It's in the government's interests to say so, as it's presumably part of the bluff. But he's mistaken all the same. Parliament can presumably only rule out No Deal definitively by revoking notification, which is clearly a Nuclear Option, but it is still within their power to do so. It will only become impossible on the last day (or maybe a few days before).
It's important to challenge cassa's post above, too: any definition of parliamentary democracy includes the idea that MPs are charged not to blindly follow orders but to use their judgement to do what the believe is best for the country -- and then be held accountable afterwards if the people disagree. But if Parliament collectively decides that No Deal was a bad way of leaving the EU, then it is certainly not undemocratic to say so and to act on that belief.
It's important to challenge cassa's post above, too: any definition of parliamentary democracy includes the idea that MPs are charged not to blindly follow orders but to use their judgement to do what the believe is best for the country -- and then be held accountable afterwards if the people disagree. But if Parliament collectively decides that No Deal was a bad way of leaving the EU, then it is certainly not undemocratic to say so and to act on that belief.
It isn't any kind of real democracy if the elected can decide they know best and can overrule the people. And the elected can not be held accountable afterwards because capital punishment is no longer considered acceptable even for treason. So they just get asked to leave Westminster and find friends to offer them multi-million pound salary positions or whatever's going. Or perhaps go on the speech circuit charging more per talk than most earn in a year.
//But if Parliament collectively decides that No Deal was a bad way of leaving the EU, then it is certainly not undemocratic to say so and to act on that belief.//
So what if (as seems the case at present unless either Parliament approves a totally unacceptable deal or the EU alters its position) it is the only way of leaving the EU?
So what if (as seems the case at present unless either Parliament approves a totally unacceptable deal or the EU alters its position) it is the only way of leaving the EU?
// And the elected can not be held accountable afterwards because capital punishment is no longer considered acceptable even for treason. //
Wait, what? I mean by electing someone else at the next election.
As to NJ's question : strictly speaking, No Deal, will *never* be the only way to leave the EU. But leaving that pedantry aside, if it were the only option then I think it's too extreme and too drastic a solution to be implemented without going back to the people in a second referendum. I mean, you can hardly be surprised at my answer there :)
No, but, seriously -- it's meant to be the first duty of politicians and of government to act in the best interests of the country, or in what they judge to be the best interests of the country. It stands to reason that if all the evidence points to some policy being against the UK's best interests then, at the very least, an "are you sure?" referendum, removing any ambiguity, should follow. We're back to the old problem, though: I hold that No Deal is bad for the country, so should be avoided at all possible costs; you disagree, or at least think that it's either exaggerated or worth pursuing in order to implement the 2016 vote properly. Never the two positions can meet :(
Wait, what? I mean by electing someone else at the next election.
As to NJ's question : strictly speaking, No Deal, will *never* be the only way to leave the EU. But leaving that pedantry aside, if it were the only option then I think it's too extreme and too drastic a solution to be implemented without going back to the people in a second referendum. I mean, you can hardly be surprised at my answer there :)
No, but, seriously -- it's meant to be the first duty of politicians and of government to act in the best interests of the country, or in what they judge to be the best interests of the country. It stands to reason that if all the evidence points to some policy being against the UK's best interests then, at the very least, an "are you sure?" referendum, removing any ambiguity, should follow. We're back to the old problem, though: I hold that No Deal is bad for the country, so should be avoided at all possible costs; you disagree, or at least think that it's either exaggerated or worth pursuing in order to implement the 2016 vote properly. Never the two positions can meet :(
> During his bid for the Tory leadership, Matt Hancock said no deal was "not an available choice" to the next PM, as MPs "will never allow it to happen".
Was that a fact or an opinion?
> He told the BBC he had now changed his mind because they had a chance to block it in a series of votes last month, but failed to muster the numbers.
His mind has changed. But have any facts changed?
He's a prat because he presents his opinions as facts and then, when he changes his mind, says the facts have changed!
Was that a fact or an opinion?
> He told the BBC he had now changed his mind because they had a chance to block it in a series of votes last month, but failed to muster the numbers.
His mind has changed. But have any facts changed?
He's a prat because he presents his opinions as facts and then, when he changes his mind, says the facts have changed!
//"not an available choice" to the next PM// that's true in the sense that it's not a choice but the default //as MPs "will never allow it to happen"// - that's an opinion, I've heard a lot but short of cancelling A50 I have yet to see any viable way of stopping the default position enshrined in 2 acts of parliament.
All that's needed to change the default position "enshrined in two Acts of Parliament" is a third Act that supersedes the previous two. The EU (Withdrawal) Act 2019, introduced by Yvette Cooper, more or less shows the way forward. Presumably it would need drafting differently, and say something more than just "get another extension please", but it's clearly doable.
As to Spicerack's post: like it or not, there's a rational and logical case for not going ahead with Brexit (in more or less the same way that I'm reluctant to concede that there is some logic to wanting to leave the EU [even] under a No Deal scenario). So if you believe in that argument, and the evidence supporting it -- well, why wouldn't you use every tactic at your disposal to try and "save" the country?
At the same time, there's talk that Johnson is considering defying constitutional convention and refusing to respect a No Confidence motion, assuming he loses one. In a fight for the soul of the country, when both sides are equally convinced they are right, it's bound to get ugly. I don't think that's "trickery".
What happens after a hypothetical future referendum depends both on the question and on the result. If it unambiguously endorses a No Deal, both in the question and in the result then... well, maybe by that time we'll have a proper plan for it after all. But that's still some way off; right now it would be a victory enough to persuade everyone that such a referendum is a reaffirmation of democratic principles rather than a rejection.
As to Spicerack's post: like it or not, there's a rational and logical case for not going ahead with Brexit (in more or less the same way that I'm reluctant to concede that there is some logic to wanting to leave the EU [even] under a No Deal scenario). So if you believe in that argument, and the evidence supporting it -- well, why wouldn't you use every tactic at your disposal to try and "save" the country?
At the same time, there's talk that Johnson is considering defying constitutional convention and refusing to respect a No Confidence motion, assuming he loses one. In a fight for the soul of the country, when both sides are equally convinced they are right, it's bound to get ugly. I don't think that's "trickery".
What happens after a hypothetical future referendum depends both on the question and on the result. If it unambiguously endorses a No Deal, both in the question and in the result then... well, maybe by that time we'll have a proper plan for it after all. But that's still some way off; right now it would be a victory enough to persuade everyone that such a referendum is a reaffirmation of democratic principles rather than a rejection.
//"When the facts change, sometimes even as a politician you have to change your mind."
What a prat.//
a reference to John Maynard Keynes - who was far from being a "prat".
also, with reference to a vote of no confidence it may be worth noting that since 1945, UK governments have faced these on 23 occasions & only one of these has been successful - when Jim Callaghan lost by a single vote in March 1979.
What a prat.//
a reference to John Maynard Keynes - who was far from being a "prat".
also, with reference to a vote of no confidence it may be worth noting that since 1945, UK governments have faced these on 23 occasions & only one of these has been successful - when Jim Callaghan lost by a single vote in March 1979.
//when both sides are equally convinced they are right, it's bound to get ugly. I don't think that's "trickery"//
Were we to have a second referendum - a "People's vote", or a plebiscite "confirmatory" of some or other thing, presumably cast in ambiguous questions written in an arcane language as formulated by the Electoral Commission? - and if the "people" got the answer wrong for a second time, then their decision would be treated with the same contempt by the "special people", i.e. those who know better by dint of high IQ, never having to make a living in the real world, ignorant of all practical economics etc.
So, following such a referendum, all the AB Jims, all the Jims in Parliament and all the Jims in the Remainstream media would carry on exactly as before: prevent the stoopids creating economic Armageddon.
And that, dear, sir, would be "trickery".
-when both sides are equally convinced they are right, it's bound to get ugly. I don't think that's "trickery". , and if the "people"
Were we to have a second referendum - a "People's vote", or a plebiscite "confirmatory" of some or other thing, presumably cast in ambiguous questions written in an arcane language as formulated by the Electoral Commission? - and if the "people" got the answer wrong for a second time, then their decision would be treated with the same contempt by the "special people", i.e. those who know better by dint of high IQ, never having to make a living in the real world, ignorant of all practical economics etc.
So, following such a referendum, all the AB Jims, all the Jims in Parliament and all the Jims in the Remainstream media would carry on exactly as before: prevent the stoopids creating economic Armageddon.
And that, dear, sir, would be "trickery".
-when both sides are equally convinced they are right, it's bound to get ugly. I don't think that's "trickery". , and if the "people"
I apologise also for my pejorative misrepresention of the Remainer case. I said:
"So, following such a referendum, all the AB Jims, all the Jims in Parliament and all the Jims in the Remainstream media would carry on exactly as before: prevent the stoopids creating economic Armageddon."
I ought to have given full credit to the many Jims and their honourable stance by using the phrase "protect both them and the country from their ignorant folly."
"So, following such a referendum, all the AB Jims, all the Jims in Parliament and all the Jims in the Remainstream media would carry on exactly as before: prevent the stoopids creating economic Armageddon."
I ought to have given full credit to the many Jims and their honourable stance by using the phrase "protect both them and the country from their ignorant folly."
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Why Are Labour Trying To Shield The...
News6 mins ago
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.