Brecon and Radnorshire by-election

[Jonboy]

I think these days "democratic" means facilitates a no deal Brexit.

"Undemocratic" means anything else.

[Nth Kent Eagle]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

I think these days "democratic" means facilitates a no deal Brexit.

"Undemocratic" means anything else.

MPs voted for a referendum, then voted to trigger A50 but have rejected the deal agreed between the awful May and the EU three times. Until they tell us what they do want and approve something, no deal is the default.

[Nth Kent Eagle]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

I think these days "democratic" means facilitates a no deal Brexit.

"Undemocratic" means anything else.

Duplicate.

[fang]

Originally Posted by Nth Kent Eagle

MPs voted for a referendum, then voted to trigger A50 but have rejected the deal agreed between the awful May and the EU three times. Until they tell us what they do want and approve something, no deal is the default.

A default for which there is no democratic mandate.

[JDawg]

Originally Posted by fang

A default for which there is no democratic mandate.

You are going to have to explain this.

NKE forgot the EU (Amendment) Act 2008 and obligations under the Treaty of Lisbon which enshrine A50 and the withdrawal in law.

Following this process, the consequence of not being able to agree anything after the two year period is the only thing now keeping the UK in the EU is the consent of other member states. Hence it is the default.

Because of this act and the treaty obligations (and its associated agreed process) once notice was given, leaving without a deal has always been the default purely down to passage of time. Voting against no deal doesn't get us there as the Treaty obligations (and the agreed process) only fall away once the UK leaves. Parliament has to agree on another course of action.

So it's a consequence of Parliament accepting the referendum result, however badly this was explained to the electorate. It is also political hooliganism beyond belief and just plain stupid. However, suggesting there is no democratic mandate is a bit of a stretch.

[Nth Kent Eagle]

I really can't get my head round what happens if by late October MPs have voted to say we cannot leave without a deal but have rejected every deal offered and haven't voted to rescind A50. Surely, we leave at that point whatever MPs want?

[ebyeeckeagle]

Originally Posted by Nth Kent Eagle

I really can't get my head round what happens if by late October MPs have voted to say we cannot leave without a deal but have rejected every deal offered and haven't voted to rescind A50. Surely, we leave at that point whatever MPs want?

Pretty much so, the default is leave.

I imagine there are plans for some bill but not sure how that could happen now in the time frame. No confidence vote? Same.

The government could just sit on its hands and we will merely fall over the edge.

[SE25 exile]

Originally Posted by JDawg

So it's a consequence of Parliament accepting the referendum result, however badly this was explained to the electorate. It is also political hooliganism beyond belief and just plain stupid. However, suggesting there is no democratic mandate is a bit of a stretch.

There is certainly no democratic mandate for parliament to allow the deadline enshrined in A50 as you describe, to reach the default scenario without counter actions of which there are several options, and that is what Johnson and his appointed cronies and sappers are currently proffering.

[Adlerhorst]

Originally Posted by SE25 exile

There is certainly no democratic mandate for parliament to allow the deadline enshrined in A50 as you describe, to reach the default scenario without counter actions of which there are several options, and that is what Johnson and his appointed cronies and sappers are currently proffering.

Parliament cannot reasonably claim it has not had plenty of opportunities to do something positive about this. It has repeatedly failed. Repeatedly.

It created the environment that will allow Johnson to do this.

[SE25 exile]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

Parliament cannot reasonably claim it has not had plenty of opportunities to do something positive about this. It has repeatedly failed. Repeatedly.

It created the environment that will allow Johnson to do this.

No, Theresa May is responsible for that environment by creating a government supported by the DUP to stay in power. She also created the "backstop" with the EU, and allowing these two things to co-exist was a terrible misjudgement, as was calling the 2017 election and losing her majority in the first place. This was the recipe for parliament failing to approve her deal. It was all about preserving power and unity in her party which has led to this impasse, and her early failures to seek a cross party consensus before entering the negotiating chamber. To blame parliament per se, is a simplification of recent political history, and in doing so is empathising with the Johnson "do or die" mantra.

[adrenalin john]

Originally Posted by Adlerhorst

Parliament cannot reasonably claim it has not had plenty of opportunities to do something positive about this. It has repeatedly failed. Repeatedly.

It created the environment that will allow Johnson to do this.

Since Cameron decided his election strategy for the 2015 General, it is like at every junction we have taken the wrong path.

For 4 years I have thought it can't get worse, then it does, then it does, then it does, then it does, then it does.

[Madden]

Maybe as Sir Paul McCartney used to sing (prior to the knighthood), it's time to "give Ireland back to the Irish"!

[adrenalin john]

Originally Posted by SE25 exile

No, Theresa May is responsible for that environment by creating a government supported by the DUP to stay in power. She also created the "backstop" with the EU, and allowing these two things to co-exist was a terrible misjudgement, as was calling the 2017 election and losing her majority in the first place. This was the recipe for parliament failing to approve her deal. It was all about preserving power and unity in her party which has led to this impasse, and her early failures to seek a cross party consensus before entering the negotiating chamber. To blame parliament per se, is a simplification of recent political history, and in doing so is empathising with the Johnson "do or die" mantra.

But there are so many ifs and buts. Cameron never had to promise a referendum in the first place.

He could have allowed 16 year olds and Europeans in the UK to vote.

He could have called it at the end of his term not in the middle of a refugee crisis.

Corbyn didn't have to get nominated as a labour candidate, corbyn didn't have to get elected, Corbyn could have campaigned properly for remain.

After losing Cameron didnt have to resign, Cameron could have appointed a cross-party group of politicians, civil servants, businessmen and economists to negotiate Brexit.

By resigning, May was voted in on the basis of delivering a hard Tory Brexit. Article 50 didn't have to be invoked so soon. May could have had a consensus approach to negotiation. She didn't have to call an election. She could have called for a referendum on her deal.

Parliament when it finally got control could have voted for a 2nd referendum or could have inisisted on a customs union.

The tories could have voted in someone fit for office.

And the above is just a snapshot, there are for more incidents that also took the turn for the worse

[adrenalin john]

Anyway apologies for being so miserable. I just can't find anything in politics or public life to be positive about, and trust me I would love to be positive.

[steeleye20]

Do agree AJ, also for me the refusal to have the EU involved in the referendum itself.

If we could see the EU, europe leaders, listen to them it would have made all the difference IMO.

I wonder why the UK regards itself as a democracy, really if it is a very tenuous link.

[Selhurst300]

Originally Posted by JDawg

You are going to have to explain this.

NKE forgot the EU (Amendment) Act 2008 and obligations under the Treaty of Lisbon which enshrine A50 and the withdrawal in law.

Following this process, the consequence of not being able to agree anything after the two year period is the only thing now keeping the UK in the EU is the consent of other member states. Hence it is the default.

Because of this act and the treaty obligations (and its associated agreed process) once notice was given, leaving without a deal has always been the default purely down to passage of time. Voting against no deal doesn't get us there as the Treaty obligations (and the agreed process) only fall away once the UK leaves. Parliament has to agree on another course of action.

So it's a consequence of Parliament accepting the referendum result, however badly this was explained to the electorate. It is also political hooliganism beyond belief and just plain stupid. However, suggesting there is no democratic mandate is a bit of a stretch.

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.

[nicky]

Originally Posted by adrenalin john

Anyway apologies for being so miserable. I just can't find anything in politics or public life to be positive about, and trust me I would love to be positive.

Blue passports John. BLUE ******* PASSPORTS.

[JDawg]

Originally Posted by Selhurst300

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?