LinkBack URL
About LinkBackshttps://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/Originally Posted by Saracen999
https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/
They've rejected the deal, rejected not having the deal, now the best we can hope for is rejecting any extension, just to ensure we've eliminated all of the options.
Galant (14-03-2019)
So have I got this right:
JRM believes advisory votes should be honoured and parliament should be sovereign unless they don't go the way he wants.
May believes its unethical to keep asking the people to vote until they give the right result but its OK to keep tabling the same deal until MPs give her the right result.
Except either cancelling altogether, or signing up for so much of the EU that it's tantamount to staying in, but without any voting rights, i.e. BRINO.
Remember, most MPs are remainers, even if their constituents aren't. This is hardly a surprise ... but it is a serious undermining of an already cynically regarded system.
I wonder if the party system, and especially the Tory party, will survive this if MPs conspire to screw up Brexit altogether.
I do hope not, a more proportional system would be a big improvement.
As for the current farce, it could get worse. After tonight we could realistically have a parliament that has voted to say that it is;
against the only deal on the table
against having no deal at all
against a long postponement (which will be needed to get a different deal)
against a 2nd referendum to sort this all out
against cancelling Brexit altogether
Thanks, but irrelevant to my point.
Leaving, and doing so in a couple of weeks, is UK law. Statute law. Primary legislation.
Never mind whether the referendum is either morally or legally binding (yes and no respectively IMHO). That's another issue altogether. The point is that leaving, and the date, are law, and will happen, unless legislators can find a lawful way to change that, and doing so requires certain processes and regulations to be followed. It is not going to be easy to overturn any Act of Parliament, in a few days, given those procedures.
The "motion" to avoid no deal is exactly that, a motion. It is, if you wish, an expression of the wishes of the House but it doesn't override statute.
So currently, unless a legal way can be found to repeal that act, or amend the date, and quickly, we leave on the 29th, with or without a deal in place. Bear in mind too .... any such measures may have to withstand a legal challenge in the courts,
And THAT, in my opinion, has long been the PMs game plan .... run down the clock until exactly two options remain .... her deal or a no-deal exit. She hopes that will scare both obdurate remainers and recalcitrant Brexiteers into backing her deal, for fear of something much worse,
Nah, it's an outright 50/50 chance and comes down to one simple question... Did you, or did you not, do what your wife [naughty]-well told you to???!!!
_______________________________________________________________________
Wasn't the TTIP between the US and EU proposing just that - companies being able to go to court against national governments etc? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transa...nt_Partnership
And apparently negotations have restarted. Presumably lost behind the Brexit smokescreen.
Nah, not at all. I've been married approx 30 years. From that, you can deduce there's a 100% chance I know better than to not do what I'm told.Nah, it's an outright 50/50 chance and comes down to one simple question... Did you, or did you not, do what your wife [naughty]-well told you to???!!!
Or to put it more accurately, I do exactly what I want ..... but she's told me what it is that I want.
Also ... she doesn't drive a bus.
Point taken, but no, that wasn't what I meant. Why trade deal will have an arbiteation panel with representatives of both sides, covering trade matters under the agreement.
The EU is, to members, a supranational body and it's courts are superior to national courts in a whole host of matters that aren't the subject of a trade deal.
Can you setiously see the US signing a TTIP-type deal that meant the US Surpreme Court was subservient to the EuCtJustice? Or, for that matter, the EU signing a TTIP deal where it made the EauCtJustice subservient to the US Supreme Court?
I can't, in either direction.
Every trade deal I've ever looked at had to have a means if resolving trade disputes covered by the deal) and not unreasonably, neither side would accept the other's court's as impartial.
The jurisdiction the ECtJ has over EU member nations far more closely resembles the relationship of the US Supreme Court to that of legal independence of individual US states .... each of which, of course, guards it's jurisdiction jealously against any perceived attempt at jurisdiction-grabs by federal authorities.
The EU is not, and since at least Maastricht, has not been, merely about trade. Trade, important though it is, has the same function as cheese in a mousetrap. It is about way more than that and is a nascent superstate, still evolving, but the direction of evolution is now crystal clear and in truth, long has been, though more carefully camouflaged in the past.
Indeed. The EU has a point when it says it can see from the votes what Parliament is against, but has yet to work out what Parliament actually does want.
This, IMHO, is because different groups oppose things, like Mays deal, for different reasons - some because they want a harder or no-deal Brexit, others because they want a much softer Brexit and yet more because they want no Brexit at all.
They agree on what they don't want, but are at each other's throats when it comes to what they do want.
As for proportional representation, be careful what you wish for, lest you get it. Look back at the Euro elections where UKIP beat both Labour and Tories to first place. Fancy a Westminster parliament where UKIP 2.0 (by whatever name, but not the bunch lead by the current idiot) were the largest party?
Also, a PR system might see a Tory schism, but it might also shatter Labour and see the Corbynite era ended .... depending on how people voted of course.
Or not. Who knows?
Yes .... they want the Unicorn option, and don't seem to have noticed that there's a minor technical problem with that.
Or should that be EUnicorn option.
I'd be quite happy to see both major parties fracture into smaller parties that more accurately reflect what their MPs and members believe. As for a UKIP 2.0 party, if thats what the country voted for then so be it.
And with that remark, your chances of dying just went up.... You should know the exact date of your marriage and thus the exact length of time. Cardinal sin. Oh well. Bin nice knowin' ya...
Actually I might, simply because it sounds like a much fairer system and seeing such a bunch of [very naughty words] gain power would more likely lead people into voting responsibly, as well as coaxing into the polling stations all those who don't bother voting because they think it's a rigged, pointless two-party system... all in the name of removing the UKIPers.
Whereas we're currently looking at becoming EUnuchs...
_______________________________________________________________________
Hey, we agree.
Wanna start a (political) party? See how far we get before we fracture?
Oh, believe me, I know.And with that remark, your chances of dying just went up.... You should know the exact date of your marriage and thus the exact length of time. Cardinal sin. Oh well. Bin nice knowin' ya...
I just don't put precise personal info on the net. Privacy, y'know.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote