The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[3Wishes]

	Quote:	Fish Paste
	My Brexit prediction now is, a long extension, say 2 years, in which time the UK will ‘cancel’ brexit somehow. Alternative, shorter extension, but the proviso of a second referendum. They should have taken Mays deal when they had the chance.

Technically I think they still have a chance...MV3 on Tuesday?

	Quote:	Troublawesome
	...I wish Becrow blocks this crap, this is a travesty of democracy as vote3 will be identical to vote2. At least vote2 vs vote1 had a shred of change on it, this is copy paste.

It will be interesting to see what the speaker decides. He allowed vote 2 with what I guess were some tiny changes, so if there's a tiny change again for vote 3 then maybe that's enough?

What I don't understand is why Bryant chose not to make a motion on his amendment when he had the chance. Wouldn't that have been a useful vote to have? (Bryant amendment was to block the government from bringing the same thing a 3rd time).

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	And what would be the point of another non binding referendum? It would not change the situation in parliament.

I believe that an act of direct democracy should be closed by the same, particularly when there isn't a clear course in Parliament from representative democracy. Hopefully, everyone will learn their lesson from the error of combining the two.

	Quote:	Jim2007
	I doubt very much you will see much change. MPs tend to follow the local party line, that is what gets them re-elected. A do not believe many of them are off freelancing on this.

Here's the problem... MPs are duty bound to represent all their constituents, regardless. All I'm seeing is my hometown MP bending the knee to kippers and blukippers, whilst the MP for the constituency where my vote is, has done absolutely zero to represent the majority of his constituents. He's voted against May's deal twice, and against no deal being removed as an option, even though his constituents voted Remain.

	Quote:	Fish Paste
	Stay in the EU unless there is a 60-65% vote to leave, make it binding. The burning of the MPs will take place at the next election regardless.

I fully agree with you; it's madness to allow such a monumental change to a nation's status to be dictated by just over half of just over half of the nation's population.

However, I don't think it's possible for the UK to hold binding referenda. It's Her Majesty's Parliament, not the people's. Nevertheless, the government could still commit to honouring the result of any second referendum, just as it did the first.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:
	However, I don't think it's possible for the UK to hold binding referenda.

It's not possible.

	Quote:
	Nevertheless, the government could still commit to honouring the result of any second referendum, just as it did the first.

Which, in theory, would require an Act of Parliament. If that wasn't forthcoming, it would require another High Court case to remind the PM, as it did with the Gina Miller case.

May is possibly the most constitutionally unaware PM of my lifetime.

[marton]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	It's not possible. Which, in theory, would require an Act of Parliament. If that wasn't forthcoming, it would require another High Court case to remind the PM, as it did with the Gina Miller case. May is possibly the most constitutionally unaware PM of my lifetime.

They could still commit to honouring the result of any second referendum but it would not be legally binding!
I doubt they would make an Act of Parliament because that would be setting a precedent under English law for surrendering Parliamentary sovereignty; which nobody wants to do.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I believe that an act of direct democracy should be closed by the same, particularly when there isn't a clear course in Parliament from representative democracy. Hopefully, everyone will learn their lesson from the error of combining the two.

It does not really matter what you believe, the fact is that the UK has a sovereign parliament. Rather that BREXIT, what the UK needs first is to establish a proper democratic process. That would actually be taking back control.

The funny thing is that in 1922 during the Anglo Irish treaty negotiations, both Lord BirkenHead and Churchill were adamant that Ireland needed a proper codified democratic process and that it should be based on a sovereign people rather that an sovereign parliament.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Here's the problem... MPs are duty bound to represent all their constituents, regardless. All I'm seeing is my hometown MP bending the knee to kippers and blukippers, whilst the MP for the constituency where my vote is, has done absolutely zero to represent the majority of his constituents. He's voted against May's deal twice, and against no deal being removed as an option, even though his constituents voted Remain.

Then it is up to the constituents to hold them to account. No process is going to satisfy everyone and until the UK decides to change that process, it is what it is.

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	marton
	They could still commit to honouring the result of any second referendum but it would not be legally binding! I doubt they would make an Act of Parliament because that would be setting a precedent under English law for surrendering Parliamentary sovereignty; which nobody wants to do.

The basic problem is that no matter what the outcome of a referendum is, it can only be implemented if there are sufficient MPs to carry it out. You simply can't have a sovereign parliament and a sovereign people at the same time, it is one or the other.

[Jdr]

	Quote:	FrankZappa
	and my interview for French nationality is fixed: 14th of March.

Interview went OK ?


Jos

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	The basic problem is that no matter what the outcome of a referendum is, it can only be implemented if there are sufficient MPs to carry it out. You simply can't have a sovereign parliament and a sovereign people at the same time, it is one or the other.

Which is precisely why I believe the referendum should never have happened in the first place, and why that idiot, Cameron, shouldn't have had it as part of his election manifesto.

[greenmount]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Which is precisely why I believe the referendum should never have happened in the first place, and why that idiot, Cameron, shouldn't have had it as part of his election manifesto.

Cameron is one of those persons really enamoured with themselves. It's visible, his body language, talking, everything. I think there's no mirror Cameron doesn't love....

[Jim2007]

And now we have the sovereign speaker.....

Speaker rules out Brexit vote on same motion

This lets make up how the country is governed as we go along is working out so welll...

Perhaps working on codifying how the country is governed with a written constitution and documented parliamentary procedures would bring back more control than BREXIT!

	Quote:	Jim2007
	And now we have the sovereign speaker..... Speaker rules out Brexit vote on same motion This lets make up how the country is governed as we go along is working out so welll... Perhaps working on codifying how the country is governed with a written constitution and documented parliamentary procedures would bring back more control than BREXIT!

To be fair, all Bercow has done is abide by Erskine May. The principle is the same as the one used by Brexiteers to argue against a second referendum.

[curley]

	Quote:	Jim2007
	..... Speaker rules out Brexit vote on same motion .....

<<John Bercow has ruled out another vote on the government's previously rejected Brexit agreement if the motion remains "substantially the same".

He told MPs parliamentary conventions dating back to 1604 meant they could not be asked to vote on precisely the same subject twice in the same session.>>

Oh look, someone who gets how things work. (Okay, at least how they don't).
Swiss ancestors?

[Rob]

	Quote:	curley
	<<John Bercow has ruled out another vote on the government's previously rejected Brexit agreement if the motion remains "substantially the same". He told MPs parliamentary conventions dating back to 1604 meant they could not be asked to vote on precisely the same subject twice in the same session.>> Oh look, someone who gets how things work. (Okay, at least how they don't). Swiss ancestors?

https://newsthump.com/2019/03/18/the...ontent=newpost

[curley]

	Quote:	Rob
	https://newsthump.com/2019/03/18/the...ontent=newpost

Brillant! The last 10 minutes on EF were great, my stomach muscles are starting to react.
(Does that pass as exercise?)

I was gonna give you pebbles, system doesn't let me.

[SponPlague]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Technically he can, but this is too big for him to take such a measure.

Oh yes? What was I saying about egos?

https://order-order.com/2019/03/18/b...aningful-vote/

[Jim2007]

	Quote:
	To be fair, all Bercow has done is abide by Erskine May. The principle is the same as the one used by Brexiteers to argue against a second referendum.

	Quote:	curley
	<<John Bercow has ruled out another vote on the government's previously rejected Brexit agreement if the motion remains "substantially the same". He told MPs parliamentary conventions dating back to 1604 meant they could not be asked to vote on precisely the same subject twice in the same session.>> Oh look, someone who gets how things work. (Okay, at least how they don't). Swiss ancestors?

Well I don't know how it is in other parliament of Westminster style democracies, but in Ireland the speaker (Ceann Comhairle) presides over the discussions but does not set the agenda, that is the business of the whips. Having a sovereign parliament, with restrictions on they can discuss or decide is contradictory.

The role of Speaker of the House of Commons is indeed markedly different to that of his Irish counterpart. The Speaker has very substantial powers conferred upon him, and his decisions are final and cannot be appealed. The same is not true of the Speaker of the House of Lords, the Lord Speaker, by the way.

[marton]

	Quote:	curley
	<<John Bercow has ruled out another vote on the government's previously rejected Brexit agreement if the motion remains "substantially the same". He told MPs parliamentary conventions dating back to 1604 meant they could not be asked to vote on precisely the same subject twice in the same session.>> Oh look, someone who gets how things work. (Okay, at least how they don't). Swiss ancestors?

I was visiting a Swiss friend today, he decided to demonstrate he often watched Sky news! He turned on his TV right in the middle of Bercow's statement, fascinating stuff.

Leaders like Trump and May do stuff without taking proper advice and then find themselves in the middle of their own mess!

So where next!

[Fish Paste]

	Quote:	marton
	So where next!

Down the sh1tter?

Hard Brexit is now back on!