What precedent? That a non binding advisory referendum has to go for a vote by MPs we elected to represent us in a representative democracy?Originally Posted by RaceTheSweeper
What precedent? That a non binding advisory referendum has to go for a vote by MPs we elected to represent us in a representative democracy?
Referendums are appropriate on constitutional matters and there is precedent E.g. we've had them on devolution questions and the AV electoral system proposal. We've also had one on the EU before in 1975.
On what basis are MPs better qualified? Many of them have never had a proper job in their life. If Parliament had made the decision on the euro at the time (rather than Gordon Brown vetoing it out of spite for Tony Blair) we would almost certainly have joined. It would have been a calamitous decision.
Having said all that, I do agree with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. This was the basis of the Leave argument after all. However on most issues there hasn't been a referendum to determine the outcome of an issue. In this case there was following a vote in parliament by 6 to 1 to grant it. To then go against the decision of the electorate would be a scandal.
Yes I agree, all the project fear scaremongering by the Remain camp was a bit dishonest but thankfully the electorate saw through it and still voted to leave.
As one of the brexit voters i'm not too bothered, honestly. The key position amongst remainers has always been that they will not accept this result and will fight to reverse it. As a brexiter i can't be arsed to sink to their level if indeed the decision to leave is overturned, i'll just accept it and walk away.
Thing is MrB, it's not your average Joe Remain voter that you need to be bothered about.
It's your MP you need to worry about!
Looks like the 2 teams have returned back down the tunnel to their dressing rooms.If it were a game of rugby/football, the two sides have just come out of the tunnel and are on the pitch warming up. The ref hasn't even blown the start whistle yet, never mind anyone actually knowing how the game will play out, what tactics the teams will use or what the result will be.
But like Welsh rugby, it's something for all the "experts" to talk about in the pub
Surely neither of the two main parties would risk vetoing the decision of the electorate. It's still a done deal.
Depends what you mean by Brexit tbh.
But lets face facts, my only real concern is that youve overtaken my post count ya big baw bag
And so they should - they had no idea what game they were meant to be playing, under what rules, whether they were at the right ground, nor indeed whether they should have brought football boots, tennis rackets, or hockey sticks.
I think more fuss in being made of the court decision than is necessary. If I was PM I wouldn't even bother with the appeal.
Table a vote on Article 50. Article 50 is not he process, as Moley alluded to, they haven't even got on the pitch yet and Article 50 is just the starting whistle.
The Labour MPs, such as Nandy last night on QT, have said they respect the referendum result and will not block article 50.
To continue the analogy, Parliament can discuss how the negotiation is going somewhere in early 2018 at the half-time whistle and if they don't like it, consider a substitution and/or a change of formation(General Election).
I am 100% sure that the EU will not give a running commentary. The Council will negotiate and only when completed will the sovereign parliaments of Belgium, Denmark, Latvia...... be told what the deal is and get a chance to vote on it.
If the PM does trigger an article 50 vote and Parliament blocks it, then she will have a gloves of Election and a re-shaped Parliament. It would delay the process a few months at best.
Richard Taylor
"William Tell could take an apple off your head. Taylor could take out a processed pea."
Sid Waddell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote