Archive for The Motor Forum "We are mature men in the highest cadres of our careers"
 


       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Racing Teatray

Should there be a parliamentary vote on triggering Art.50?

An interesting question. For what it's worth the legal profession seems to be fairly unanimously of the view that this is a matter for parliament (you wouldn't expect lawyers to be keen on executive powers after all).

In particular, I thought this by an eminent QC writing in the FT puts it well:

There is no doubt that the legal arguments are finely balanced. Suffice it to say that the matter has been much debated in the legal blogosphere and the real constitutional experts are split evenly. For my part, I expect the claimants to succeed.

The common law is not a machine. It is not a process for stamping onto blank tablets answers of lapidary serenity. It is a living creature — agile and reflective, and sensitive to its context. That context will include a concern about the power of the executive in what may be an effective one-party state, as well as a recent select committee report which concluded that it was “constitutionally appropriate” to seek the assent of both houses of parliament before triggering Article 50; not to mention a sense that the country stands poised at a cultural cross-roads.

But one can also stand back from the legal detail and ask the question, should parliament have a say? The court will, for sure.

When I do that, I arrive at the following: in another world, the Conservatives select not Mrs May but another leader. And in that other world, that other leader takes a different view as to the quality of the mandate given by the referendum. Recognise that possibility and then contemplate its consequence: responsibility for the most profound decision in the recent life of our nation is a matter of the personal preference of one individual. When you see that, you see how compelling is the argument that the decision must be one for our elected parliament.
Twelfth Monkey

I confess I don't understand all of this.  Is the question 'should parliament consider voting on overruling the electorate?'
Nice Guy Eddie

You didn't have an undecided in your vote options.

To be honest a parliamentary decision is just adding another level of bureaucracy in the hope that it dealys he project even further.

How abou we ask the people in a referendum about how we should deal with the referendum and on the back of that referendum we can decide if we can carry out another referendum with the reasoning that the British public don't know jack. And given my response to your question neither do I
Racing Teatray

Twelfth Monkey wrote:
I confess I don't understand all of this.  Is the question 'should parliament consider voting on overruling the electorate?'


No. It's a vote on how we go about Brexit. It's not a vote on not Brexiting. That ship has, unfortunately for this country, sailed.

It's about making sure that Theresa May doesn't get sole say in the matter, given she seems to have some very suspect ideas.
JohnC

The EU referendum was not binding so the Government (or Parliament) could decide to ignore it if they wish. That is the issue that needs a Parliamentary decision - do we accept or reject the referendum?
Chris M Wanted a V-10

I was under the impression that our MP's and therefore Parliament was elected by the people to serve them.  The people have voted and the majority decision from those who bothered to vote was that we should get out, so why should PArliament need to vote again on the matter?
The electorate has spoken and their wishes should now be followed
Nice Guy Eddie

The only argument being that Teresa May wasn't elected as PM nor where the Tories Voted as the party to take us out of the EU.
Big Blue

It should have been a parliamentary vote in the first place, with a close parliamentary outcome leading to a referendum; a clear parliamentary vote leading to no referendum. Government is elected to take these tough decisions after debate and is balanced by the make up parliament and a referral to the Lords. As the parliamentary Labour Party have discovered if you ask every dickhead allowed to vote a question they will deliver to you a dickhead.

If the issues around EU membership, the effects of leaving, the effects of staying and the overall scope of EU membership were too complex for the layman then the layman will put it into lay terms. In this case it was immigration, jobs, funding and self determination that came to the fore. Article 50, its meaning, implementation, timing and effects only made it to the man on the Clapham Omnibus AFTER the vote.

That said I take Cameron's ideal that he had to have a referendum as if the parliamentary debate had started it would not have ended before the 2020 election and the new government may not have been one eager to allow a vote. In essence the referendum was held to clear the Conservative Party split on Europe once and for all. Once the UK is out the Party can stop expending energy on pro- / anti-EU matters and focus on government.

Holding a debate on Article 50 now, after a plebiscite, with the high risk of rejecting the trigger of it would lead to a complete breakdown of belief in the process of government. No matter how poorly this is being managed, parliament voting to reject the outcome of a national vote would be like having a national football manager introduced as the new man to lead the side to the next World Cup and beyond then have them sacked 2 months later. No one would do that, would they?
Frank Bullitt

Chris M Wanted a V-10 wrote:
I was under the impression that our MP's and therefore Parliament was elected by the people to serve them.  The people have voted and the majority decision from those who bothered to vote was that we should get out, so why should PArliament need to vote again on the matter?
The electorate has spoken and their wishes should now be followed


Except we are already past that state.  The referendum was to leave the EU and enact Article 50 or remain on the changes that David Cameron had secured. I am not being glib when I say that to do this properly David Cameron should have enacted Article 50 immediately and the U.K. should have gone for a 'Hard Brexit' - that is the mandate as set out in the referendum and what the 52% voted for.

Unfortunately the 'out' campaign were allowed to change the 'out' to 'a better deal where we get control of our borders and free movement of goods, £350m a week to spend on what we want' - they should have been called-out at the time that their argument to the UK ought to be 'out' with article 50 enacted the day after an 'out' vote.

So as it sits here today the electorate have not had their will seen through as David Cameron failed to enact Article 50 and the negotiation of terms started immediately.

Instead what we have is the grotty process of 'Brexit meaning Brexit' which means fuck knows what as an attempt is made to create some weapons-grade backtracking from all the little vermin who saw this as an opportunity for self-promotion to give the impression they are trying to get a deal.

The treaty does not give the opportunity for Sovereign Parliaments to enact article 50 on terms agreed with the remaining members so I have no idea what the purpose would be of it being put to Parliament other than an attempt to stop the process.

So, personally I would like to see Parliament kick this whole sad little fiasco into touch as a footnote to remind us all 'be careful what you wish for' but in truth I have no idea why, the best part of 4 months down the road we are not 20 months away from a hard Brexit with every opportunity to improve on that position being taken in the meantime. Anything else is a failure to listen to the will of the people.
Racing Teatray

I just have the impression that Darth May will go for a hard Brexit because anything else will be too much like hard work.

The Article 50 trigger is the only real leverage we have. Juncker is desperate for us to pull it because then he has us exactly where he wants us, which is f**ked sideways from here to eternity. And given the amount of hot air expended about "returning sovereignty to parliament", it seems odd now to try to avoid that at all costs - it appeared to be what the B-52 were after.

And the arguments about still wanting to sell us wine and BMWs are unfortunately highly specious. Politics will trump reality here, and nobody will emerge a winner. That's the sad, and at the current rate inevitable, truth.
Michael

One thing that I noted from her conference speech was that she mentioned security and anti-terrorism cooperation as one of the areas we'd still work with our European partners. This is one area where the French in particular need us pretty badly and are benefiting right now from our expertise in this area. I saw it as this area of cooperation being thrown on the table as a bargaining tool and for all the posturing I doubt she'd go for hard Brexit. That said, leaving the common market was explicitly stated as the only way to control migration by Remain and for this reason we have to accept the population ultimately voted for hard Brexit.
Bob Sacamano

It should never have gone to a referendum but since it did we have to respect the decision. I don't want to live in a country where something is offered out for the electorate to vote on and then that decision is then usurped by a vote by MPs. You can argue that's the way it should be done but it would just send out the message to the voters that ultimately their vote is worthless and would further turn them off democracy and politics.
Grampa

Racing Teatray wrote:
Juncker is desperate for us to pull it because then he has us exactly where he wants us,


Or is he desperate for us to pull the trigger well ahead of other European Countries' elections next year?  How much is there a danger of the whole thing falling apart when it comes to their elections?  I don't much follow European politics - is there much chance of parties coming to power by promising referendums on 'Frexit' or 'Grexit'?  (sorry for those expressions!)
Big Blue

Grampa wrote:
Racing Teatray wrote:
Juncker is desperate for us to pull it because then he has us exactly where he wants us,


Or is he desperate for us to pull the trigger well ahead of other European Countries' elections next year?  How much is there a danger of the whole thing falling apart when it comes to their elections?  I don't much follow European politics - is there much chance of parties coming to power by promising referendums on 'Frexit' or 'Grexit'?  (sorry for those expressions!)


This: the Germans and the French vote next year. The French are due a regime change, hence the reemergence of Sarkozy and LePen is showing significant inroads akin to those seen by UKIP in the run up to Brexit. The Germans are a different proposition in that there is almost a gulf between open-the-borders-let-the-disadvantaged-in and the kill-anyone-that-was-born-east-of-Görlitz; borderline or moderates are outnumbered by these extremes. Another reason for all the threatening behaviour from the EU is because if the UK makes a decent fist outside the EU the German population will say: what the f..... and do the same. Then it's game over for the EU.

Basically no ones going to win in the short term.  The UK will have some kind of hyper-inflation period of ostracism and when that's over the EU will break up. Then we'll be back to three hour queues between former member states when we do trade/go on holiday like I remember as a kid.
Racing Teatray

And won't that have been worth all the pain, effort and expense!!
gooner

TBH I think the whole Brexit thing will be a pointless side note in history once Putin and Trump start chucking Nuclear weapons at one another in a fight about a rubble strewn portion of Syria.
JohnC

gooner wrote:
TBH I think the whole Brexit thing will be a pointless side note in history once Putin and Trump start chucking Nuclear weapons at one another in a fight about a rubble strewn portion of Syria.


I sincerely hope not!
Racing Teatray

I confess that, much as I abhor each of Assad, Putin and what Russia is doing in Syria, I (and I suspect most others in the world) don't abhor it enough to risk world peace over it, and that is precisely what Putin is gambling on.

Quite why he cares so much about Syria is also anyone's guess.
Scouse

It's his only deep water port & base in the med. without it it is so much harder for him to exert influence/mischief * in NATO's back yard.



* delete as appropriate.
Tim

Racing Teatray wrote:

Quite why he cares so much about Syria is also anyone's guess.


Because Assad has some photos that prove the real reason why Putin likes to be naked near horses?    
PG

Big Blue wrote:
... Another reason for all the threatening behaviour from the EU is because if the UK makes a decent fist outside the EU the German population will say: what the f..... and do the same. Then it's game over for the EU.


The EU bosses believing that the fear of not being in it is the best way to hold the EU together tells me everything I need to know about them. Their arrogance got the where we are today, they have not learnt anything.

I can imagine the meeting. Staffer "Sir, the beatings are not working, the EU is still not loved". Junker "OK, increase the level of beatings until they all love us".
Racing Teatray

PG wrote:
Big Blue wrote:
... Another reason for all the threatening behaviour from the EU is because if the UK makes a decent fist outside the EU the German population will say: what the f..... and do the same. Then it's game over for the EU.


The EU bosses believing that the fear of not being in it is the best way to hold the EU together tells me everything I need to know about them. Their arrogance got the where we are today, they have not learnt anything.

I can imagine the meeting. Staffer "Sir, the beatings are not working, the EU is still not loved". Junker "OK, increase the level of beatings until they all love us".


Or rather in our case, beat them mercilessly to show them what happens if you don't love us.

I spent the afternoon with some colleagues presenting to a BRICS bank client with EU operations based here on their legal options vis-à-vis their EU banking operations in light of Brexit. It was pretty much impossible to explain to a collection of immaculately pleasant and polite but baffled and worried non-Europeans as to why any aspect of Brexit could make any sense to anyone.
Big Blue

In your sector, Racing, you're right. It makes no sense to close open access to all European banking markets where many non-European banks have EU bases in London.
Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Part of me wants to say yes, because I think there would be a majority against triggering Article 50 - but what really needs to happen is for this government to rediscover its balls and brains and state the obvious - Brexit is going to put the UK economy in the dumper for years to come, so why not just accept that it was a stupid idea all along and drop the whole sorry thing.
Racing Teatray

Because terrifying numbers of otherwise intelligent people are completely convinced that Brexit is the answer to everything and their reaction to being called on that is always a variant (however sophisticated) on sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "I believe it, therefore it must be so".

       The Motor Forum Forum Index -> General
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum