Brexit

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by Damien

Government loses by a bigger margin that expected. Parliament 'takes control' although I am not clear what that means in practise since they can't force the government to do something. They will be able to do indicative votes now.

It means nothing.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m now certain that Brexit will not happen.

It’s shocking, but we have a chamber of liars that voted to enact A50, but now will not. No idea were this end, but it wont be with us leaving the EU anytime soon, if at all.

There isn't a majority for Remain or a 2nd referendum. The remaining options are no deal still, customs union/EEA or maybe finally the ERG will stop slapping themselves on the back and signing the great escape, see what's happening and back May's deal.

Originally Posted by Pierre

Far right parties will rise, and everybody will naval gaze and wonder why?

The far-right parties can rise anyway. If there is an economic hit they'll use that. Brexit was forever going to be betrayed. Even if it's no deal then it'll would have been that all the stuff promised could have been delivered but we were betrayed e.t.c. Days after the vote went to Leave I said that by the end of it those advocating it would claim a stab in the back narrative.

[jfman]

Another victory for our sovereign Parliament. No one party should dictate the destiny of our United Kingdom.

A government ignoring the will of Parliament loses a vote of confidence.

Originally Posted by Pierre

I’m now certain that Brexit will not happen.

It’s shocking, but we have a chamber of liars that voted to enact A50, but now will not. No idea were this end, but it wont be with us leaving the EU anytime soon, if at all.

Remain will win. Democracy will be sidelined.

Far right parties will rise, and everybody will naval gaze and wonder why?

It’s not the first time an Act of Parliament has been challenged/overturned, and it won’t be the last.

One of the strengths of our Parliamentary system is the ability to change things - otherwise once an Act became Statute Law it would be forevermore.

Originally Posted by jfman

Another victory for our sovereign Parliament. No one party should dictate the destiny of our United Kingdom.

A government ignoring the will of Parliament loses a vote of confidence.

Rubbish.

And a Parliament ignoring the will of the people, loses even more respect and confidence from the people that put them there on broken manifesto commitments, there is nothing victorious about MPs stealing Executive privileges so they can serve their own self-interests instead of the electorate that put them there.

That said - they cannot do any lasting damage for just one day - They are indicative votes only - not binding - Government can ignore them, if they so wish.

[1andrew1]

What happens next? I think no-deal, Theresa's deal and people's vote are all unlikely outcomes.
Could a softer Withdrawal Agreement be put forward to the EU in place of Theresa May's deal? How long would it take to negotiate this with the EU? Or a General Election in which case all parties will need to firm up their position on Brexit. They will need to put more than "Brexit means Brexit" in their manifestos.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

A government ignoring the will of Parliament loses a vote of confidence.

And what of a parliament that ignores the electorate?

---------- Post added at 06:28 ---------- Previous post was at 06:23 ----------

They need to agree the Withdrawl Treaty or we leave on April 12th, so we know that Withdrawl Treaty will not pass, ever.

So the only other option is a long extension of a year or more, EU elections and probably a GE, a softer Brexit that isn’t really Brexit at all, or quite possibly remain.

The betrayal will be complete.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

And what of a parliament that ignores the electorate?

I'll put the two arguments against this to you...but we all should appreciate there's no right or wrong here.
1. Politicians have to act in the best interests of their constituents as they see things. They do not simply look at the way their constituents voted in the referendum, however politically expedient in the short term this might be.
2. A majority of the electorate now want to remain. And before anyone jumps in, no it's not bollocks, that's from multiple polls.
So, a Parliament that implements Brexit could be seen as ignoring the electorate. Democracies do allow people to change their minds and many don't-knows are now against leaving.

Your point of view is a valid one, Pierre. But so is the counter view.

[DocDutch]

I don't see how a ge would solve this issue unless Pro leave and pro remain parties would be created and not a vote for either Conservative party or Labour.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'll put the two arguments against this to you...but we all should appreciate there's no right or wrong here.
1. Politicians have to act in the best interests of their constituents as they see things. They do not simply look at the way their constituents voted in the referendum, however politically expedient in the short term this might be.
2. A majority of the electorate now want to remain. And before anyone jumps in, no it's not bollocks, that's from multiple polls.
So, a Parliament that implements Brexit could be seen as ignoring the electorate. Democracies do allow people to change their minds and many don't-knows are now against leaving.

Your point of view is a valid one, Pierre. But so is the counter view.

Prime examples are Kate Hoey and Corbyn. Both from strong remain constituencies.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by DocDutch

I don't see how a ge would solve this issue unless Pro leave and pro remain parties would be created and not a vote for either Conservative party or Labour.

Presumably, MPs would have to agree to their party's position or face deselection. But the parties will need to define their position precisely and not just "Brexit means Brexit".

[OLD BOY]

Given that the Withdrawal Agreement itself keeps us in the customs union pro tem, maybe we should simply ditch the political statement. Then there will not be any argument left about the backstop or customs union because that will be a matter for any future trade agreement with the EU.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'll put the two arguments against this to you...but we all should appreciate there's no right or wrong here.
1. Politicians have to act in the best interests of their constituents as they see things. They do not simply look at the way their constituents voted in the referendum, however politically expedient in the short term this might be.

I would accept that argument, if from the very outset that they acted in that way. I have to ask why didn’t they

1. Vote against the referendum in the first place
2. Stand for election on a manifesto to honour the result of the referendum
3. Vote against A.50

They should either had voted against 1. Resigned in the face of 2. Or voted against 3.

2. A majority of the electorate now want to remain. And before anyone jumps in, no it's not bollocks, that's from multiple polls.

polls are so accurate aren’t they? You just don’t know that, any result would probably be within the margin of error either way

So, a Parliament that implements Brexit could be seen as ignoring the electorate. Democracies do allow people to change their minds and many don't-knows are now against leaving.

Your point of view is a valid one, Pierre. But so is the counter view.

The only way to be sure would be another referendum, Which I would be happy with, but the question would have to be exactly the same.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Angua

Prime examples are Kate Hoey and Corbyn. Both from strong remain constituencies.

At least Kate Hoey's constituents know where she stands. The same can't be said of Jeremy Corbyn's.

Parliament should have refused to vote for Article 50 until the final plan was known and embraced. May should have come to Parliament with a 'desired outcome' for Parliament to approve and then use that at the basis for the following two years.

---------- Post added at 08:44 ---------- Previous post was at 08:16 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Given that the Withdrawal Agreement itself keeps us in the customs union pro tem, maybe we should simply ditch the political statement. Then there will not be any argument left about the backstop or customs union because that will be a matter for any future trade agreement with the EU.

The Withdraw agreement depends on the political statement is my understanding, it's an integral part. The backstop would be needed in any case as that's a essentially a promise that we won't put up borders in N.Ireland by committing ourselves to not bringing about a situation where one would be required. The EU want the backstop to be legally binding rather than our word (and frankly given the mess here who can blame them for that?).

Personally I don't even understand how May's deal actually fixes that problem rather than delay it. Neither side wants customs checks at the border. If you don't want customs checks then you need to have tariff-free access across all physical products and regulatory alignment for them too. That's a customs union. If we're not in the Customs Union with Ireland - and therefore the EU - then you need customs checks. There is not yet any technology that can do this seeminglessly no matter what Boris Johnson says.

So either:

1) We have a Customs Union - Can't do trade deals for products plus winds up Brexit supports
2) We put up some degree of customs checks on the island of Ireland - annoys seemingly everyone breaking the Good Friday Agreement but especially Irish people in N.Ireland
3) We put a border in the Irish Sea and have a stipulation that N.Ireland lives in a different regulatory environment - DUP won't have it, and could concede N.Ireland will join Ireland eventually

If a new election got rid of the DUP in power than I think 3 would have been the option we would have gone for. 2 no one really seems to wants including Americans who've warned against it. 1 is the most likely at this point.