View Single Post
Old 09-08-2019, 07:35 PM
JDawg's Avatar
JDawg JDawg is offline
Safe European Home
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 10,360
Rep Power: 21474846
JDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is hereJDawg Sam the man is here
Originally Posted by Selhurst300 View Post
That's a very helpful summary.
I think that the view about "no deal" not being democratic is linked to the referendum.
Firstly, from a legal perspective, it was an advisory referendum, as voted by Parliament. It was the then PM who decided that he would go with the result of the referendum, irrespective of how close it was. Democratic shortfall.
Secondly, it was not clear that "no deal" was an option in the referendum. Hence, the majority of those who voted "Leave" did not vote for "no deal".
Hence the claims of undemocratic.
Not quite. Prior to the PM giving notice, Parliament had passed the EU (Notice of Withdrawal) Act by 494 to 122, the courts having previously established that Parliament had to be involved (the Gina Miller case). This legislation authorised the Government to give notice and in passing it they took the advice of the referendum. So whilst the PM signed, Parliament’s dabs are on its authorisation.

I have sympathy with the sentiment of the second point as information on consequences seems to be limited to the decade of uncertainty page in the pamphlet we all got. Perhaps right but hardly all encompassing.

However, as a practical matter, contextualising the whole deal/no deal thing at the time of the referendum is a bit of a red herring because of the inherent circularity in the argument: The withdrawal agreement is negotiated only after notice is given, but the point of the referendum itself was to advise as to whether this notice should be given in the first place. It was the result of the referendum which triggered the notice process which, in turn, triggered the negotiation.

Even if you ignore this, it would have been impossible at the time to pre-judge any deal’s contents or outcome. So, what do you say back in 2016 when all of this was ahead of us? Best efforts to reach an agreement? That’s what happens anyway and the risk of no deal really only presents itself these best efforts fail or are allowed to fail. In either event we leave the EU which was the answer to the question asked. So, I’m still struggling with the no mandate comment.

No deal is utter hooliganism so the question should be why has the deal been allowed to fail? That’s one for the Parliamentarians. Why should the rest of us suffer for what is really a battle for the soul of the Conservative party with a very weak opposition doing little to oppose?

Last edited by JDawg; 09-08-2019 at 07:37 PM.
Reply With Quote