Brexit

MrsGrey

MIAHammer said:

Barney said:

What is the point of democracy if they dont do what has been decided by the people?

Because sometimes the people need to be protected from themselves.

This should never have been put at the people’s door. It was too important and too complicated.

And there are different kinds of democracy. And limitations on who can participate.

ASLEFshrugged

BubblesNeverDies said:

These are the people who are supposed to put the country first but have instead thought more of their careers. ;angry

Alternatively they were voting to represent their constituents, the majority of who voted to leave.

BubblesNeverDies said:

This country and this political system are broken.

Our political system is not that much different from any other country although it could certainly do with a bit of tinkering around with.

The UK still has the 5th highest GDP (just ahead of France and India) and the economy is still in a better state than it was in 2009 (we were 6th behind France 2008-2014).

Not broken but certainly limping a bit.

MrsGrey

ASLEFshrugged said:

Alternatively they were voting to represent their constituents, the majority of who voted to leave.

But voting against no-deal isn't betraying their leave-voting constituents. They aren't saying don't leave.

And anyway, MPs vote in line with party policy once they've been elected, never mind what the constitutents want on any one issue. (Usually, anyway.)

ASLEFshrugged

MrsGrey said:

And anyway, MPs vote in line with party policy once they've been elected, never mind what the constitutents want on any one issue. (Usually, anyway.)

Not necessarily, unless a vote is whipped then MPs can and do vote as their conscience dictates.

MrsGrey

;ok Free votes are quite rare, though - hence my 'usually'.

Slacker

So the latest this morning is that the attorney general (Cox) may try to smooch the ERG with “revised “ legal advice which may allow the UK to leave the backstop agreement unilaterally.
This coming after his in depth and solemn advice on Tuesday informed The House that legally we could not.
Does anyone else see through this cheap trick?
“I know what I said but you didn’t like it, so how about this?”
No better than a car showroom salesman.
This government............

thornburyiron

Trouble is there’s a huge disconnect between voters and MPs. Of those who voted 52% were for leave but about 80% of MPs want to remain.

Whitehorsehammer

Thorn. As you say, therein lies the problem. I still blame Cameron, it should never have been put to a referendum.

MrsGrey

Slacker said:

So the latest this morning is that the attorney general (Cox) may try to smooch the ERG with “revised “ legal advice which may allow the UK to leave the backstop agreement unilaterally.

IF you are referring to the discussion about using article 62 of the Vienna convention, I read about that ;ok

Although, if as is being reported it can only be used to terminate the agreement (and get out of the backstop) if there are 'unforeseen and fundamental change of circumstances' it's hard to see that it could be justified.

Because since we are discussing the circumstances in which the UK would want to unilaterally leave the backstop, they are pretty much 'foreseen'. lol

BubblesNeverDies

Aslef
"Not broken but certainly limping a bit"

I'd say it's more than a limp and definitely more than a mere fleshwound.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/10/deepest-cuts-austerity-measured

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/10/how-austerity-broke-britain-and-how-we-can-recover

BubblesNeverDies

And regarding the political system:
https://theconversation.com/what-this-brexit-debacle-shows-us-about-the-uks-broken-political-system-108650

Especially read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from last.

MrsGrey

MrsGrey said:

Ocs, will be interesting to see if she is allowed to bring the same proposal back for another vote. Parliamentary rules of procedure say that if MPs vote something down, you can't just bring the same thing back again for another vote. The Speaker can apply the rules and prevent the vote.

OCS, this is becoming more pertinent.

An amendment citing the relevant bit of Parliamentary procedure and thus calling for a 3rd vote on the same thing to be blocked is going to be voted on this afternoon.

tbh, I expect it will be defeated, but I'm hoping someone in the debate will point out the hypocrisy of what May is trying to do.

OldCastleSwift

Me too, Mrs G. She's hard over that a second referendum shouldn't happen but is trying to get a third (and potentially fourth, I read this morning) vote on her deal.

She speaks of democracy, but only when it suits.

thornburyiron

Problem is if there was a second referendum and I don’t think there should be, even if the leave vote won by a margin of 90/10% MPs would still try to block it.

Yeoldhammer

Depending on the referendum question I don't think they could after a second vote.

ASLEFshrugged

BubblesNeverDies said:

Aslef
"Not broken but certainly limping a bit"

I'd say it's more than a limp and definitely more than a mere fleshwound.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/10/deepest-cuts-austerity-measured

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/10/how-austerity-broke-britain-and-how-we-can-recover

Austerity has been imposed by the Tories since they came to power in 2010, nothing to do with Brexit.

BubblesNeverDies said:

And regarding the political system:
https://theconversation.com/what-this-brexit-debacle-shows-us-about-the-uks-broken-political-system-108650

Especially read the 3rd and 4th paragraphs from last.

That says that its the voters that are the problem, that they are ill informed but I would argue that is probably the case with the vast majority of countries.

I doubt if the voters of France, Germany or the USA are any better informed politically than those in the UK so whether they elect their governments by FPTP or PR is irrelevant.

BubblesNeverDies

Aslef, I didn't say that the country is broken because of Brexit, although I can understand that you could infer that.

The point about the political system that is made in the article is that such an important issue as leaving the EU should not have been put in the hands of the politically uninformed.

IronHerb

You mean leave it to the political elite?

BubblesNeverDies

You mean Parliament.
It's why the subject of capital punishment (it being an important issue) has never been put to a referendum.

MrsGrey

IronHerb said:

You mean leave it to the political elite?

Well, if you want to think of the people we elect democratically to represent us in Parliament, that way, then yes. It's their job.


Personally, I don't thin of them as the political elite. I think of them as MPs who, if we don't like the way they do their jobs, we can sack. And elect someone else.

IronHerb

MrsG, I was responding to the "politically uninformed" comment which I find condescending and 'elitist'.

secrethammersfan

The voters of any country are as well informed as the media lets them be. The British press was allowed to become anti-EU, and for thirty years has been freely spreading opinion as news ("You couldn't make it up!" was often proven to have been made up), then the British people will believe that the Eurocrats are trying to impose their laws. The laws that the newspapers reported were about straight bananas and nappies on donkeys (both apparently told as a joke by Dutch and German journalists to their UK counterparts, who often didn't attend European Parliament sittings, but waited in the Parliament bar and asked their colleagues what they had missed).
The laws that were never reported were about pyjamas not being able to catch fire, or minimum sickbay, or Europe-wide cooperation of health services.
The UK electorate is well-informed. The problem is the sources of their information.

IronHerb

"The voters of any country are as well informed as the media lets them be."

No, they are as informed as they want to be.

claretandbluesky

I don't think many would argue with the idea that any country has a mix of the highly intelligent and thick as two short planks, in serious decisions you would want the brightest to study and reflect. Sadly during the referendum the leave campaign began early to discredit the experts by a combination of calling them elite and product fear, thus discrediting them and their predictions.

thornburyiron

By their predictions do you mean the millions out of work, immediate financial Armageddon, sterling crashing etc etc. It’s funny how remainers claim all the leave propaganda was lies but believed everything remain said and what was in the leaflet we all paid for.
Both sides said things that were just scare mongering or untrue.
Among my friends there’s a mix of leavers and remainders. None of the leavers believed any of the bus claims or stopping immigration etc but had a variety of reasons. Most of the remainers didn’t believe the scare stories although the more committed did but again had their own reasons for their votes.

MrsGrey

Have we left yet?

claretandbluesky

I think that it would have immediate effect was a gross exaggeration but this was because everyone knew we would not leave immediately. I do feel there will be grave repercussions for the economy if we leave, rather than in name only which I suspect is what will happen. What is being found in my view is that you either can leave and cause the economy massive disruption or you can stay. The problem with finding a deal in the middle is if you safeguard the economy you are not really leaving and if you do leave its potentially catastrophic.

The not so often talked about economic risk is in my view the rate at which we borrow. We rely on borrowing and it only needs our credibility to drop and the cost of borrowing goes up, and that changes everything.

What were your reasons for wanting to leave Thorn and what repercussions if any did/do you imagine upon the economy?

MrsGrey

Having said that, sterling rates against the euro fell of a cliff immediately and have never really recovered.

MrsGrey

OldCastleSwift said:

Me too, Mrs G. She's hard over that a second referendum shouldn't happen but is trying to get a third (and potentially fourth, I read this morning) vote on her deal.

She speaks of democracy, but only when it suits.

The amendment wasn't moved, so wasn't debated.

secrethammersfan

In my opinion, the reason the US has Trump and the UK has Brexit:
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/03/version-brexit-has-already-happened-rob-delaney-austerity-and-our-warped-news