To think that if you voted for Brexit becaise you valued British 'sovereignty', that you should WELCOME the opportunity for Parliament to have a meaningful vote

[flibbertyfive]

Following on from my previous Brexit thread. Here:

It is now looking pretty certain that we will not achieve a deal with the EU and will therefore very shortly be falling out of the EU with no deal.

This is not what was promised before the referendum and polls show there is little support nationally among voters for a hard (no deal) Brexit. There is also no majority for it among MPs.

Theresa May has lied to her own MPs who want a meaningful vote on the outcome of the negotiations - she wants to force through whatever is decided behind closed doors without our MPs being able to have any say at all.

This is outrageous - if you voted for Remain, but even more if you voted for Brexit, which was, above all, a vote for the UK Parliament to be sovereign.

How dare Theresa May try to overrule Parliament and deny our elected representatives a vote on the future of our country, the most important change to our constitution and economy in decades??!!!

This is the OPPOSITE of what the public voted for, both Brexiters and Remainers.

Let MPs have a meaningful vote, Theresa May.

MissionItsPossible

Fine. If you're so convinced that a hard Brexit would win in any vote (in Parliament, in a second referendum, why not have the votes then?

Why are you so keen to ensure the votes can't take place if you are so sure hard Brexit will win?

@flibbertyfive

Why are you so keen to ensure the votes can't take place if you are so sure hard Brexit will win?

I understand you are passionate about this topic but can you pinpoint to where I said I am ‘keen’ to ensure the votes can’t take place if I am sure hard Brexit would ‘win’. In response to your OP I said polls are not accurate and I want them to get on with it. That was all.

CaitlynsCat

This isn't just any old bit of legislation, this is the most important piece of legislation in decades.

May only won the vote against MPs having a meaningful say in the type of Brexit that happens by lying to her own MPs.

It is not acceptable that legislation as important as this is decided in secret by a small group of extremists whose views are so out of step with Parliament as a whole and the electorate.

MissionItsPossible

I wish they were getting on with it a bit quicker too - in 2 years, they've managed to agree basically nothing, which is really quite impressively poor progress.

But is what comes of drawing red lines initially that are entirely contradictory and impossible.

Nevertheless, having wasted this much time already, the time to rush it through is definitely not at the scrutiny stage!

This is incredibly important legislation, and it matters that we get it right. We're not going to get a second shot at it.

You may have great faith in Rees-Mogg, David Davis etc as truly interested in the will of the people and the well-being of the ordinary man/woman. I don't share your happy conviction.

flibbertyfive

I agree with your last post. I don’t know why you’re coming across as so aggressive! Do I have great faith in Rees-Mogg and Davies? You seem to have answered for me just for my admission of voting to Leave. To be honest, I find the demands of people who voted Remain to those that voted to Leave asking the likes of “How do you intend to justify xxyyzz” as though Leave voters are being invited to the House of Commons to plan Brexit tedious. If it had gone the other way I wouldn’t be hounding you into how you would justify the way the EU works and what you were going to do about it!

"Your post makes no sense. You are arguing that because May does not have a large majority, and it is hard for her to get anything through, she is therefore justified in ignoring the will of Parliament (and by extension, the electorate)!"

This is total nonsense.

The will of Parliament is not the will of the electorate, there are for instance far more pro-Remain MPs in Brexit constituencies than vice versa.

The notion of the 'will of Parliament' is utterly irrelevant. If the government wants to pass legislation than it goes through Parliament. If Parliament doesnt support it, we don't get the legislation. There is no arbitrary concept of 'will' which Parliament can use for arbitrary ends. Parliament's direct function is to scrutinise and pass legislation.

It does not have any kind of role in the negotiation of international treaties. Please read researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05855/SN05855.pdf

"It is because she couldn't win a large majority that she has no right to force her decisions through Parliament.

I'm gobsmacked at the casual dismissal in your post of the whole basis of Parliamentary democracy! shock
"

She is not 'forcing' anything. She is the PM and she has whips, etc., who are tasked with helping her pass legislation. If Parliament passes legislation then it becomes law. There is no possible concept of 'forcing', it's a simple majority.

"You seem to be saying hat we should just ignore the will of the people if not enough of them vote for the party in charge. Basically, you are advocating dictatorship.

I am completely astonished. I find it hard to believe you are British with an attitude to democracy like that. I can assure you that British people have rather more respect for the basic rules of democracy."

? I'm not sure I follow you. Theresa May is following the system that we have in the UK. If you had followed politics for any part of the last decades you would understand this.

Other countries have systems which, to my eyes, produce worse outcomes. Younger countries tend to have an explicit written constitution, which they like to fetishize as the source of all that is fair and just in the world.

I don't agree with them. Your idea that I can't possibly be British if I don't insist on some set of arbitrary rules that don't in fact exist in our system is the same woolly thinking that led you to suggest that a Brexit was a vote to have more parliamentary scrutiny of the executive, and just shows how wrong you are.

I don't find this especially complicated - Theresa May complies with the rules to achieve her government's objectives.

The government was formed at the invitation of the Queen in our constitutional monarchy with Theresa May as Prime Minister.

It does not necessarily involve legislative scrutiny for every act, but rather reflects the fact that a majority of elected MPs were able to agree to support a particular government & PM, following the general election.

The MPs who disagree? Er, well, I'm sorry to tell you, they aren't particularly important in our system, and never have been. As long as the government has the support of the majority of Parliament it is there to govern. If at some time the government should lose the confidence of Parliament, a vote of no confidence can be called, and following the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, a general election will be triggered.

For the time being Theresa May's government has the confidence of Parliament and she can execute exactly which executive power she chooses. Legislative scrutiny comes when she wants to pass legislation.

This is not a complicated concept, really.

But if parliament cannot agree what else is there do to? Brexit is happening. It was always going to be a hard brexit because the EU cannot afford to loose other affluent countries. I agree that May is mishandling this. She should let parliament have as many votes as it likes because it is pointless. The EU is notoriously difficult to agree trade deals with. May's government should be focusing on establishing trade deals with non-eu countries and strengthen g the commonwealth in particular rather than wasting time with the EU.

Without sounding patronising and it will probably come across this way regardless, just focus on your own life. In the grand scheme of things it will not make much difference in your lifetime and it will help you to relax 👍🏽 If you are involved in Parliament then you could make a difference, if not, then most likely not.

We have has a general election since the referendum. Does anyone know what any of the manifestos said about parliament having a vote on Brexit t&cs?

Overall though, that election made Teresa May leader of the largest party in parliament and so she holds the power of the executive. How she then chooses to use it is (within reason) up to her and is how our democracy works. Sovereignty isn't the same thing as parliamentary process.

"We have has a general election since the referendum. Does anyone know what any of the manifestos said about parliament having a vote on Brexit t&cs? "

The Conservatives pledged there would be hard Brexit if they didn't like the EU's terms.

Labour pledged NOT to accept 'no deal'.

The Lib Dems pledged for Remain.

The DUP supported Brexit.

Thus the resulting Conservative/DUP majority government is exercising the will of the people in order to execute their manifesto pledge of a possibility of 'no deal' hard Brexit.

The Salisbury convention states that the House of Lords will not oppose manifesto legislation. This does not extend to the Commons, of course, but there is at least in theory very strong grounds for the government to implement 'no deal' Brexit.

Thanks caitlynscat. So basically May's decision has already faced public scrutiny via the general election and so there is no reason for her to be forced to go through Parliament?

And am I correct in understanding that the reason the House of Lord's can hold up legislation is to allow time for a general election and prevent a majority government from imposing legislation that the electorate don't want? Hence why they can't oppose manifesto legislation (like Brexit) and can't oppose legislation indefinitely?

FWIW I never wanted Brexit, but that's what happens in a democracy - sometimes you are in the minority even when you feel very strongly that you are right.

CaitlynsCat

"The will of Parliament is not the will of the electorate, there are for instance far more pro-Remain MPs in Brexit constituencies than vice versa."

That's patent nonsense - the people in those constituencies did vote for those MPs, so they do represent the electorate in their constituencies.

That is the whole basis of parliamentary democracy.

You could have saved yourself typing out a really long post, as if you don't understand that, you don't understand anything about British democracy.

"May's decision has already faced public scrutiny via the general election and so there is no reason for her to be forced to go through Parliament?"

Untrue - May's decision has never faced public scrutiny because she hasn't made it yet!

No-one knows what the outcome of the negotiations is going to be, and certainly didn't know a year ago.

That's why we need a vote - a Parliamentary vote, a second referendum or a general election, I don't mind which. All or any of them.

And any Brexiter who is convinced that is what the country wants would be happy to face these too.

The only reason for refusing to have another vote is because Brexiters know full well they would lose.

Nothing remotely democratic about that.

MissionItsPossible

"Without sounding patronising and it will probably come across this way regardless, just focus on your own life. In the grand scheme of things it will not make much difference in your lifetime and it will help you to relax"

Well, the same could be said for you.

But you're here commenting.

Why aren't you just ignoring my thread if it's so unimportant?

Why is Caitlyn typing fantastically long posts? Why are you not telling her to just chill?

Your post reads like a terribly polite version of 'go away and shut up'.

Do you really believe that "In the grand scheme of things Brexit will not make much difference in your lifetime:?

Surely you can see that it will have a HUGE impact on our economy, our security, our way of life?? Otherwise why bother with it at all, if absolutely nothing is going to change.

The question is not if it will be a major change, it's if that change will be largely positive or largely negative - I believe it will be wholly negative. As such, I hope our elected representatives will be able to vote for the good of the country.

"So you can then manipulate the sovereignty thing by letting mps have a vote on the deal and we end up staying in the eu!"

Exactly Fatty What a silly thread.

Just catching up whilst on my lunch so this may have already been mentioned:

In June 2015 a vote was overwhelmingly passed in the Commons to give U.K. citizens an in/out EU ref it was passed overwhelmingly 544 - 53 with no caveats/clauses/special conditions. MPs/parliament have already had their say. Maybe they should have though through the possible ramifications prior to passing it by such a margin but they didn’t.

It is now the current governments job to deliver it.

This backwards and forwards, ‘but leavers want sovereignty’ nonsense that gets chucked about just looks like a desperate attempt to overturn the whole thing.

“And am I correct in understanding that the reason the House of Lord's can hold up legislation is to allow time for a general election and prevent a majority government from imposing legislation that the electorate don't want? Hence why they can't oppose manifesto legislation (like Brexit) and can't oppose legislation indefinitely?“

No. In some cases the Lords can hold up legislation and in some cases they have the power to reject it (although they usually refrain from doing this). In the case of the EU Withdrawal Bill the Lords can delay it until the middle of the next session of Parliament which, thanks to May making this a two calendar year session, means they could hold it up to end half of 2019 and thus essentially kill Brexit. They won’t do that, but they could have if they had chosen to push the full extent of their power.

Agree with you wholeheartedly fibberty, we need a democratic vote on the terms of the deal.
Well done got highlighting the issue do eloquently

*for

...if you can understand my post 😂
Serves me right for trying to type and cut the grass at the same time

"In June 2015 a vote was overwhelmingly passed in the Commons to give U.K. citizens an in/out EU ref it was passed overwhelmingly 544 - 53 with no caveats/clauses/special conditions"

Except of course for the fact that it was advisory and didn't need to be followed, which was the reason why the proposed clauses by the HOL and others were dismissed.

If the result of the referendum had been legally binding then there would have been conditions and caveats.

Trying to force through the result of an advisory referendum as if it had been a binding one, is very undemocratic.

"This backwards and forwards, ‘but leavers want sovereignty’ nonsense that gets chucked about just looks like a desperate attempt to overturn the whole thing."

It isn't. You can't say "We want democracy and sovereignty" and then complain when the UK Sovereign parliament acts within its rights.

Just like you can't claim that you want British Judges to make British laws, and then call them traitors when they do so.

Thanks Temple. I'm really crap at understanding how it all works so thanks for taking the time to explain.

Except of course for the fact that it was advisory and didn't need to be followed, which was the reason why the proposed clauses by the HOL and others were dismissed

Well for something that was only “advisory” there seems to be quite a lot of time/money & focus been spent on it for the last two years.

Parliament/MPs are walking a tightrope on this one both politically and personally because they know full well the majority of them passed the EU ref bill in the first place, which is why they have spent the last two years trying to eat each other (and that is all parties not just Cons).

"Well for something that was only “advisory” there seems to be quite a lot of time/money & focus been spent on it for the last two years. "

Well yes, as an advisory referendum parliament and the government are trying to find the best way to follow what the advice of the electorate was on what they wanted.

What it doesn't mean, especially as it was a very marginal victory for leave, that the hard leave camp get all of what they want and ya boo sucks to everyone else.

The fact that it was advisory was the condition on which the referendum ran, like I said had it been binding there would have been caveats for margins of victory etc, and I'd imagine the cheating of Leave.EU might have placed a binding victory in danger.

What the referendum wasn't was an overwhelming backing for a hard brexit with all sorts of caveats that weren't on the ballot, but that is what its being used as, and the press barons propaganda is selling.