EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Jonny]

Rubbish. Anything that goes on is protected by requiring a majority vote.

The trouble is that all it takes is an iffy agenda.

 

[404250]

There is, of course, a good chance there will be no majority for any of these options thus adding to the confusion!

I would say that it's highly likely there'll be a majority for Customs Union Brexit a good chance 2nd referendum could also get through.

 

[Groningen]

So this week 3 non binding votes on a second referendum, soft brexit and no deal in Parlement.

 

[dosxuk]

So this week 3 non binding votes on a second referendum, soft brexit and no deal in Parlement.

There has been no formal announcement on what options MPs will be able to vote on yet. Some are suggesting only a couple of options, others are suggesting at least seven.

 

[dosxuk]

a good chance 2nd referendum could also get through.

There have been moves afoot to disallow a second referendum as an option - because it's an element of the process rather than an outcome in itself. A second referendum would be compatible with any option that is chosen.

 

[EM2]

This is getting dangerous. Once backbench MPs are able to hijack the agenda, it would be the constitutional equivalent of a car with no brakes, at speed.

People who want Parliament to be sovereign are upset because (checks notes) Parliament is exerting sovereignty.

 

[AM9]

You might be against water metering on principle, and you might be able to afford not to have the saving you get.

Thinking of the generation after you. I thought remainers were all in favour of that?

A real water shortage is a threat in parts of the UK, exacerbated mainly by profligate use by some. Eventually, nearly all water supply will be metered in order that those who are profligate with it have to contribute to the cost of their actions. It's inevitable that during the transition to metering, those who don't want to conserve the supplies for the common good will cling to their existing arrangements until it is forcibly removed from them by legislation.
On your original point that subsequent occupiers of the property won't have the choice to waste water at the expense of others, well 'other properties are available' so those who insist on the ability to do so will have an increasingly restricted choice of where to live. They will get used to it whether they kick and scream about it now or not.
As Howardh says above, this is completely off topic and absolutely nothing to do with the our place in the EU.

 

[AM9]

People who want Parliament to be sovereign are upset because (checks notes) Parliament is exerting sovereignty.

Added to the fact that the swing away from the position at the referendum nearly three years ago is getting more pronounced. Not only has there been a realisation that the UK won't get what some promised, but there is the likelihood that many more of those that didn't vote in the referendum have formed a strong opinion that they would vote to stay now. So leaving now doesn't represent 'the will of the people', however often leavers claim it.
see here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47693645

 

[edwin_m]

This is getting dangerous. Once backbench MPs are able to hijack the agenda, it would be the constitutional equivalent of a car with no brakes, at speed.

And if the Government hijacks the agenda? They have known since last summer that the deal commands very little support and is unlikely to get through - we could have been having this debate months ago, including a referendum, and if agreed could have left on the original date. The default position if nobody does anything is one favoured only by a noisy but unrepresentative groupd of extremists, so the normal situation that things stay the same unless a change is agreed just doesn't apply here.

 

[Bantamzen]

People who want Parliament to be sovereign are upset because (checks notes) Parliament is exerting sovereignty.

Over on at least one political forum I lurk on (I stopped posting on it years ago as it was like banging my head against a wall trying to actually debate), some people are now getting upset because potential new deal scenarios are being brokered "behind closed doors". Isn't this how things work in the corridors of power? It seems one simple cross against one option on a referendum voting slip has deluded some of the public into thinking they have complete mandate over the whole process. Of course these people get very upset when you point them to the wording on the voting slip....

Added to the fact that the swing away from the position at the referendum nearly three years ago is getting more pronounced. Not only has there been a realisation that the UK won't get what some promised, but there is the likelihood that many more of those that didn't vote in the referendum have formed a strong opinion that they would vote to stay now. So leaving now doesn't represent 'the will of the people', however often leavers claim it.
see here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47693645

And this is democracy at work, despite what some leavers seem to believe. We have the right to question any original decision based on up to date facts, and revisit the way forward at any given point. Quite clearly the current deal May has put together, and of course any no deal scenario have been ruled out. So it is right and proper that Parliament revisit, debate & resolve the problem based on what is now known, regardless of what (as we are constantly reminded) 17.4 million people thought they might like back in June 2016.

Personally I am still far from convinced we have had anything like the kind of debate that is actually needed to decide on the best way forward, and until such a debate is had then the default position should be to delay or postpone Brexit until a much clearer position can be formulated. Leavers will complain that this plays into the hands of remainers, but I would argue that after over 3 years of opportunity, the leave campaign has abjectly failed to formulate a clear & cohesive position & strategy to leave the EU, and as such they are the ones who have let the 52% down.

 

[DarloRich]

This is getting dangerous. Once backbench MPs are able to hijack the agenda, it would be the constitutional equivalent of a car with no brakes, at speed.
A shutdown would be more effective, and constitutionally safer.

Where on earth do you get your ideas from? Does the concept of a "shutdown" form any part of our constitution? Parliament are taking (back?) control precisely because the PM is driving us over the cliff and is completely out of control at a time of national crisis. This is sovereignty. This is taking back control. You wanted this..........................

A bunch of back benchers have been hijacking the agenda for years, they're the entire reason we've got to this position! You've heard of the ERG right? Rees-Mogg is quite happy to be sitting at the back trying to take control.

People like Mogg want to be the gray eminence behind the scenes pulling the strings. They haven't the balls to take the responsibility and accountability that comes with being in charge. For all thier faux patriotism and fancy words they are, basically, cowards.

People who want Parliament to be sovereign are upset because (checks notes) Parliament is exerting sovereignty.

The uproar is based on an ignorance of what words and phrases actually mean. This is what leavers voted for. This is our sovereign Parliament taking back control.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The uproar is based on an ignorance of what words and phrases actually mean. This is what leavers voted for. This is our sovereign Parliament taking back control.

Perhaps @Jonny could take his concerns to the European Court of Justice?

 

[Esker-pades]

This is getting dangerous. Once backbench MPs are able to hijack the agenda, it would be the constitutional equivalent of a car with no brakes, at speed.

In what sense? This seems very "project fear".

A shutdown would be more effective, and constitutionally safer.

But would it? A shutdown is not really a thing in our constitution. Even if it was a thing here, how would it be safer?

 

[WelshBluebird]

This is getting dangerous. Once backbench MPs are able to hijack the agenda, it would be the constitutional equivalent of a car with no brakes, at speed.

Errr isn't that what the ERG and the DUP have been doing for the last 18 months or so?

 

[d9009alycidon]

I agree with the comments made above regarding a second Referendum, I cannot comprehend this attitude that a poll that happened two years ago must be considered set in stone and that it would be a democratic failure to allow a re-run. especially as it has been proven beyond doubt that the argument put forward by the leave campaign was flawed to the point of being blatant lies. We are allowed to change our mind about Governments every five years, (sooner it it suits the politicians) so why not change our minds on Brexit!

 

[Giugiaro]

I agree with the comments made above regarding a second Referendum, I cannot comprehend this attitude that a poll that happened two years ago must be considered set in stone and that it would be a democratic failure to allow a re-run. especially as it has been proven beyond doubt that the argument put forward by the leave campaign was flawed to the point of being blatant lies. We are allowed to change our mind about Governments every five years, (sooner if it suits the politicians) so why not change our minds on Brexit!

I always said it. The Brexit process started with the people*, and should end with the people. If after three or so years of stormy politics, actual fact checking and a personal reencounter with reality people still would vote to leave, so be it. I'm just concerned that if the vote ends up 50/50 again... it's not going to be good for the UK, especially if there's a clear divide between England and Scotland over again.

Perhaps @Jonny could take his concerns to the European Court of Justice?

 

[Howardh]

Word on Twitter (yes I know) is that May will have a meeting and offer a date for her resignation in order to get the ERG to vote for something they unanimously hate - her deal.
ERG member becomes PM; and is in exactly the same position as May, with the bad deal passed through parliament and they having to do the next set of negotiations - the future arrangements - with a divided parliament below them.

The only way out for parliament and the Tories is to wash their hands of it and let the public decide, but all those who think they will lose are against that. But if they would lose, then why go ahead with something the majority is against, apart from the argument they were for it years ago??

So, either way, the country's gonna be divided (terminally r/e SCO/NI?) for generations to come. Now the simple solution to me is for all to compromise and offer us the Norway+++ model (as advertised by leave during the referendum) and a lot of us remainers would vote for it. But would Brexit voters vota against it??

 

[Bantamzen]

Word on Twitter (yes I know) is that May will have a meeting and offer a date for her resignation in order to get the ERG to vote for something they unanimously hate - her deal.
ERG member becomes PM; and is in exactly the same position as May, with the bad deal passed through parliament and they having to do the next set of negotiations - the future arrangements - with a divided parliament below them.

The only way out for parliament and the Tories is to wash their hands of it and let the public decide, but all those who think they will lose are against that. But if they would lose, then why go ahead with something the majority is against, apart from the argument they were for it years ago??

So, either way, the country's gonna be divided (terminally r/e SCO/NI?) for generations to come. Now the simple solution to me is for all to compromise and offer us the Norway+++ model (as advertised by leave during the referendum) and a lot of us remainers would vote for it. But would Brexit voters vota against it??

At this juncture I think a EEA style deal would be the best we could hope for, but sadly I fear some of the hardcore leavers in the House would jump up & down and agitate some more in the hope they could still get a harder Brexit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

At this juncture I think a EEA style deal would be the best we could hope for, but sadly I fear some of the hardcore leavers in the House would jump up & down and agitate some more in the hope they could still get a harder Brexit.

Of course if May could get Labour to vote for it, the ERG and DUP could go and run...

 

[Senex]

Of course if May could get Labour to vote for it, the ERG and DUP could go and run...

But if Labour vote for it, then Labour take part-ownership and Corbyn can't then go into an election or just argue against progress on the deal that still has to be done claiming that it's all about the Tory Brexit. And doesn't the fact that he didn't appear at last Saturday's gathering rather suggest that Seumas Milne and his other close advisers are still telling him to keep away from things as much as possible?

 

[bramling]

A real water shortage is a threat in parts of the UK, exacerbated mainly by profligate use by some. Eventually, nearly all water supply will be metered in order that those who are profligate with it have to contribute to the cost of their actions. It's inevitable that during the transition to metering, those who don't want to conserve the supplies for the common good will cling to their existing arrangements until it is forcibly removed from them by legislation.
On your original point that subsequent occupiers of the property won't have the choice to waste water at the expense of others, well 'other properties are available' so those who insist on the ability to do so will have an increasingly restricted choice of where to live. They will get used to it whether they kick and scream about it now or not.
As Howardh says above, this is completely off topic and absolutely nothing to do with the our place in the EU.

Ah, declaring something off-topic!

So, I get a letter from my water company telling me I must go on a meter because water supply is under "severe stress" and citing "rising population in London & the south east" as the main contributory factor, with London & the south east being an area which has seen very considerable immigration both EU and non-EU. And that's "off topic". I love it!

 

[Ianno87]

Ah, declaring something off-topic!

So, I get a letter from my water company telling me I must go on a meter because water supply is under "severe stress" and citing "rising population in London & the south east" as the main contributory factor, with London & the south east being an area which has seen very considerable immigration both EU and non-EU. And that's "off topic". I love it!

And from the rest of the UK too. But you conveniently don't mention that.

If you're so concerned about it, you could always move somewhere else, as you are entitled to do so, UK or otherwise. You are as much a part of the 'problem' as anybody else in London & South East.

A bit like when drivers sit and complain about traffic...unaware that they *are* the traffic.

 

[krus_aragon]

This is getting dangerous. Once backbench MPs are able to hijack the agenda, it would be the constitutional equivalent of a car with no brakes, at speed.

Parliament, and the MPs that are in it, normally delegate control over the business of the house (what will be debated when, subject to the Speaker's approval) to a government that can command the approval of the house. A Government is only a Government with the approval of Parliament, and Parliament can decide to replace a government that it doesn't agree with.

When there is one party with an outright majority, forming a Government that has the confidence of the house is straight-forward. When you don't have that majority, then you either need a coalition or a "confidence and supply" agreement with another party. It's currently the DUP holding this role.

Normally, if a Parliament did not approve of the actions of the Government, then it would indicate that it had no confidence in the Government, and discussions would start to form a new Government (possibly after a general election). But at the moment, you have the strange situation where the DUP (and several Conservative back-benchers) disapprove of the Government's actions by voting against the Government, but still support the Government when a Motion of No Confidence is put to the vote. Hence the odd situation we have, where Parliament doesn't like the current Governement's agenda, can't collectively decide to replace the Government with one that will follow a different agenda, and so has decided to set the agenda directly itself.

A shutdown would be more effective, and constitutionally safer.

I'm only familiar with news of "shutdowns" from the US, so I'll base my response on their system.

A US Shutdown occurs when their elected representatives fail to pass a budget motion before the previous one expires. Until the spending of money is authorised, most government departments stop spending money, and shut down.

In the UK, the DUP have supported the Conservative government in passing its budgets. (That's the "supply" part of a confidence and supply agreement.) If a Government failed to win a budget vote, then under the Westminster system that's considered to be equivalent to a vote of no confidence in the Government*, and would trigger a change of Government, or a dissolution of Parliament and a new General Election. But that kind of UK shutdown happens every time Parliament is dissolved for a new election, so wouldn't be the same "calamity" that it is in the US.

*The Fixed Terms Parliament Act, changes this somewhat. I'm not certain that losing a budget vote would still equate to a motion of no confidence. That legislation, passed under the Coalition Government to make minority and coalition Governments more stable, has had the effect of making the current minority Government so stable it remains in power even when the majority of the house consistently votes it down. Oh, the joy of unforeseen circumstances...

 

[Howardh]

And from the rest of the UK too. But you conveniently don't mention that.
If you're so concerned about it, you could always move somewhere else, as you are entitled to do so, UK or otherwise. You are as much a part of the 'problem' as anybody else in London & South East.
A bit like when drivers sit and complain about traffic...unaware that they *are* the traffic.

No shortage of water up here!
I'm just waiting for "oh, it's the EU that have forced water meters on us....."!! As for the bit in bold, he's got about a fortnight if he wants to move to the EU. Then he'll have to ask permission unless we finally get to keep our freedom.

 

[AM9]

No shortage of water up here!
I'm just waiting for "oh, it's the EU that have forced water meters on us....."!! As for the bit in bold, he's got about a fortnight if he wants to move to the EU. Then he'll have to ask permission unless we finally get to keep our freedom.

Well bramling would surely be welcomed by the good burghers of Barnard Castle. Surely there's plenty of water up there.

 

[Geezertronic]

No shortage of water up here!

In Birmingham, we get ours from the Welsh

 

[edwin_m]

At this juncture I think a EEA style deal would be the best we could hope for, but sadly I fear some of the hardcore leavers in the House would jump up & down and agitate some more in the hope they could still get a harder Brexit.

Really not sure this would solve anything. Norway and co have to abide by many of the EU rules without having any say in them, but they seem content to do this to get most of the benefits of membership without involvement in agriculture and fisheries policies.

Under this model I fear sooner or later some EU rule would come along that a faction in the UK would object to and that would re-start the whole shenanigans, with hard Brexiters using it as a reason to want to change to a WTO situation. As EU members we've actually been very successful in stopping things we disagree with, or at least getting opt-outs. And that's assuming the EEA would want the UK as a member, with an economy probably bigger than the rest of the EEA put together and a tendency to throw our weight around.

 

[404250]

Can't a someone move this water talk to a new discussion?

 

[Giugiaro]

As EU members we've actually been very successful in stopping things we disagree with, or at least getting opt-outs.

This is certainly one of the things that EU will miss a lot when the UK leaves. A major political player, gone from the European panorama...
And there's the possibility that, if the UK ever wants to rejoin the EU, all the opt-outs will be lost.

 

[Howardh]

In Birmingham, we get ours from the Welsh

Near me are plenty of large reservoirs (Rivington/Anglezarke) and their water goes to Merseyside, whereas our water (Bolton By The Tip) comes from much further away, the Lakes! To be honest I'm not sure if that's fact or an old husband's tale; I'd love to know for sure!!

But this is getting waay off topic!