Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Brexit (Old) (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33706539)

jfman 08-12-2018 13:07

Re: Brexit
 
We will see what happens then, I’m only pointing out that the usual timescales can (and do) go out the window when Parliament is willing.

No deal Brexit presently “isn’t an option” in the minds of all but a few hard Brexiteers.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 13:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 35974260)
Read the Parliamentary Standing Orders regarding Private Members' Bills.

I initially referenced them responding to the point that only the government can introduce primary legislation. Which is not true.

Chris 08-12-2018 15:39

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35974237)
Emergency legislation could be used in a very short timescale if there’s the will in Parliament. There are a number of instances of rushed legislation. Here are two examples:

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was announced on 25th November 1974, passing on the 29th of the same month. More recently the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 passed in just two days during summer recess.

As soon as it gets framed as a national security/civil contingencies manner due process goes out the window.

Rushing legislation requires the will of the government, which controls the parliamentary timetable. You can’t get primary legislation passed in the Commons without at least the passive assent of the executive. There simply isn’t enough private members or opposition time to do it.

Pierre 08-12-2018 18:36

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 35974240)
Trouble is, as Brexiters have eventually realised, all exit options are considerably worse than we have now. This has caused them to steadily implode in a puff of reality...

Tosh.

This isn’t Brexit.

The only way Brexit could be delivered, without a load of fudge, was/is to leave on a hard Brexit and negotiate our future relationship from outside the EU.

The problem we have here is that May ( to her credit I suppose) has tried to deliver Brexit for everyone including the 48%, but instead has delivered Brexit for no one.

There is no way any form of Brexit can be delivered by March 19.

The deal will be voted down, then power reverts to Parliament and they’ll propose god knows what.

A second referendum at the end of January will probably happen.

But importantly the questions of this referendum have to be.

1. hard Brexit no deal
2. Remain

And absolutely not.

1. May’s deal
2. Remain

As the second choice is not really a choice at all.

---------- Post added at 18:36 ---------- Previous post was at 18:30 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35974252)
Private Member’s Bills?

Literally any MP, including opposition MPs, can introduce legislation.

Introduce, yes.

But there has to be the will of Parliament for anything to happen.

I “introduce” to my boss what I think I should be paid every year, but if he doesn’t Have the will to agree with me. That’s where it ends.

jfman 08-12-2018 18:40

Re: Brexit
 
If you weren’t selective with your quotes and paid attention to the common thread across almost all of my posts it’s that we have a remain Parliament conspiring to stop Brexit. If the majority of MPs are happy to crash out without a deal then that will of course happen (Parliament is sovereign after all). We both know it’s not the case though.

Pierre 08-12-2018 18:55

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35974257)
Come March there may be little opposition on the basis of returning the question to the people in a further referendum.

It’s the cowards way out for parliament, it’s what they’ll go for. This whole process has shown that Parliament is divorced from the electorate, they are there to serve themselves and not the nation. They are not representing us.

Quote:

One thing that’s clear is Parliament is against no deal. The idea it will be passive and “run out of time” is in fact fanciful.
I agree, but to first vote for a referendum, then to vote to implement the result of the referendum ( no conditions attached) to then turn around, stop and not implement the result will be seen as the day our parliament turned into a dictator and not the seat of modern democracy.

Quote:

If framed as a national security issue it can easily be done.
It won’t be, that’s just daft.

Chris 08-12-2018 19:00

Re: Brexit
 
I really can’t state this any more clearly: there will not be a second referendum unless the government wants one. There is not enough parliamentary time to pass the legislation, without the cooperation of the government, which controls the timetable.

Pierre 08-12-2018 19:08

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35974287)
we have a remain Parliament conspiring to stop Brexit. If the majority of MPs are happy to crash out without a deal then that will of course happen (Parliament is sovereign after all). We both know it’s not the case though.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that.

There are remainers, that are also democrats.

I agree that parliament is majority remain, but amongst their number are those worried about going against the democratic will of the people will do to.

A) them first and foremost, and
B) The future of politics in the U.K.

There won’t be riots, brexiteers aren’t socialists after all. But as we’ve seen again and again, the quiet majority usually do their protesting in the polling booth. So it would be interesting to see what happens.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 19:04 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35974291)
I really can’t state this any more clearly: there will not be a second referendum unless the government wants one. There is not enough parliamentary time to pass the legislation, without the cooperation of the government, which controls the timetable.

The thing is though Chris, and I agree with you, but I don’t see that the Gov or Parliament have any other way out of this. So they will find a way to make it happen.

I don’t want one, i’m In the no deal camp, and let it ride philosophy at the moment.

jfman 08-12-2018 19:25

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35974291)
I really can’t state this any more clearly: there will not be a second referendum unless the government wants one. There is not enough parliamentary time to pass the legislation, without the cooperation of the government, which controls the timetable.

Vote of no confidence changes everything, for a Government clinging on by the skin of its teeth anyway. Threatened with losing a confidence vote May clings to power, blames Parliament for not backing her deal: proposes taking her deal to the people.

---------- Post added at 19:25 ---------- Previous post was at 19:20 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35974292)
It’s a bit more nuanced than that.

There are remainers, that are also democrats.

I agree that parliament is majority remain, but amongst their number are those worried about going against the democratic will of the people will do to.

A) them first and foremost, and
B) The future of politics in the U.K.

There won’t be riots, brexiteers aren’t socialists after all. But as we’ve seen again and again, the quiet majority usually do their protesting in the polling booth. So it would be interesting to see what happens.

They’ll say it’s democratic to put it back to the people. Whether you agree or not, it’s a plausible line that many will accept.

Leaving with no deal against the promises of the leave campaign carries similar risks.

I think there’s broad agreement on a 2nd referendum however both main parties wish to avoid the blame.

Pierre 08-12-2018 19:27

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35974296)
proposes taking her deal to the people.

Any referendum that comprises of her deal or Remain is not a referendum. It’s not a choice.


I welcome a referendum on whether we want the May deal or not. That’s ok.

But if we vote “not” there would have hen need to be yet another referendum, where the choice would have to be hard Brexit or remain.

nidave 08-12-2018 19:37

Re: Brexit
 
If the TM's deal falls though in Parliament how will some of you react if she goes back to Parliament for a 2nd vote on her deal?

jfman 08-12-2018 19:38

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 35974299)
Any referendum that comprises of her deal or Remain is not a referendum. It’s not a choice.

I welcome a referendum on whether we want the May deal or not. That’s ok.

But if we vote “not” there would have hen need to be yet another referendum, where the choice would have to be hard Brexit or remain.

I agree it’s not a choice, but you have to remember these people wish to fix the result and frame it as “informed democracy”.

Labour will try to pin it on the Conservatives for getting us into this mess, blame will go in the other direction for not backing the deal. If the blame falls “equally” in electoral terms both main parties are no better/worse off. It’s a tightrope, but you can see Corbyn and McDonnell playing it well, while allowing Starmer and others to test the water.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by nidave (Post 35974300)
If the TM's deal falls though in Parliament how will some of you react if she goes back to Parliament for a 2nd vote on her deal?

It’s her prerogative if she wants embarrassed twice.

nidave 08-12-2018 19:47

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 35974301)
I agree it’s not a choice, but you have to remember these people wish to fix the result and frame it as “informed democracy”.

Labour will try to pin it on the Conservatives for getting us into this mess, blame will go in the other direction for not backing the deal. If the blame falls “equally” in electoral terms both main parties are no better/worse off. It’s a tightrope, but you can see Corbyn and McDonnell playing it well, while allowing Starmer and others to test the water.

---------- Post added at 19:38 ---------- Previous post was at 19:37 ----------



It’s her prerogative if she wants embarrassed twice.


So... you don't see any hypocrisy of bringing things (TM's deal) back to parliament to see if MP's still think the same way and people not wanting to put Brexit back to the population?

Sephiroth 08-12-2018 19:53

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nidave (Post 35974300)
If the TM's deal falls though in Parliament how will some of you react if she goes back to Parliament for a 2nd vote on her deal?

For my part, a second vote in Parliament should only occur to decide on a revised Withdrawal Agreement.

jfman 08-12-2018 19:58

Re: Brexit
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nidave (Post 35974303)
So... you don't see any hypocrisy of bringing things (TM's deal) back to parliament to see if MP's still think the same way and people not wanting to put Brexit back to the population?

I’m not really the person to take that point up with as I’m predicting a constitutional crisis where it does end up back with the people.

On the general point Parliament is all powerful in this process, so it’s her right to keep asking and run the risk of a no confidence vote and looking extremely incompetent.

Mick 08-12-2018 20:36

Re: Brexit
 
BREAKING: Tory MP Will Quince has resigned as a parliamentary private secretary over Theresa May's Brexit deal


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:00.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum