Are you and "in" or an "out"?

1383941434453

Comments

  • TheDan wrote (see)

    Not quite skinny

     

     Feeling that Teresa May and the gang have gone beyond the mandate provided by the exit vote, parliament have (quite rightly) asked for input into the negotiations before any decision is made and article 50 invoked

    Okay but this has surely created a requirement for there to be a vote which can stop article 50 - whoever doesn't want it invoked can just object to whatever terms are proposed no matter how reasonable.?

     
    seren nos wrote (see)

    It would be funny if the leavers took it to the European court to get the final appeal....

     ignoring our own laws to get European laws to overide them   image

     

    image

  • RicF wrote (see)

    The fact that the 'law' can stop even the Government from carrying out the wishes of a democratic majority, simply proves what has always been the case.

    Your lives are ruled by a group of people who only let you do and have what they want you to have.

    You and your vote counts for nothing.

    What it proves, Ric, is that the law is impartial and is subject to the whims governments, corporations, mobs, and personal opinions.

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭
    Skinny Fetish Fan wrote (see)

    TheDan wrote (see)

    Not quite skinny

     

     Feeling that Teresa May and the gang have gone beyond the mandate provided by the exit vote, parliament have (quite rightly) asked for input into the negotiations before any decision is made and article 50 invoked

    Okay but this has surely created a requirement for there to be a vote which can stop article 50 - whoever doesn't want it invoked can just object to whatever terms are proposed no matter how reasonable.?

     

    Potentially yes. However, that would require a majority in the house to vote down the proposals, assuming it would be a free vote it would be up to the individual MP's to decide if they should vote with their conscience (a majority were in favour of remaining) or if they should reflect the views of the voters in their constituency, if they don't do the latter (particularly in areas with high out votes) then they may find themselves voted out at the next election

    Finally my politics degree is useful for something!

  • SFF - funny how lots of people are worrying that parliament will vote against it.

    I see it as an opportunity for the government to make a bloody good case about what post-Brexit will look like to ensure they get the backing for Article 50 (something which should do anyway since half the country didn't vote to leave the EU and need to be persuaded). This will be better for everybody in the long run.

  • Yes - lots of people are talking about it - personally I'm not worried about it though.

    Re your second paragraph - that (Theresa) may be true in theory however unfortunately you are crediting the MPs in the House of Commons with the desire to actually make a good decision for the country rather than simply try and score political points - remember how the referendum campaign itself was fought.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    So how do you insulate yourself from the whims of others?

     

  • Skinny Fetish Fan wrote (see)

    Yes - lots of people are talking about it - personally I'm not worried about it though.

    Re your second paragraph - that (Theresa) may be true in theory however unfortunately you are crediting the MPs in the House of Commons with the desire to actually make a good decision for the country rather than simply try and score political points - remember how the referendum campaign itself was fought.

    Well the referendum result credits leave voters with making a good decision for the country rather than their own interests... 

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭

    my only argument skinny could be that this is a cross party issue, there are pro and anti on both sides of the chamber, as such it should even out the points scoring a little

    Ric- I generally use a large blanket

  • TheDan wrote (see)
    Skinny Fetish Fan wrote (see)

    TheDan wrote (see)

    Not quite skinny

     

     Feeling that Teresa May and the gang have gone beyond the mandate provided by the exit vote, parliament have (quite rightly) asked for input into the negotiations before any decision is made and article 50 invoked

    Okay but this has surely created a requirement for there to be a vote which can stop article 50 - whoever doesn't want it invoked can just object to whatever terms are proposed no matter how reasonable.?

     

    Potentially yes. However, that would require a majority in the house to vote down the proposals, assuming it would be a free vote it would be up to the individual MP's to decide if they should vote with their conscience (a majority were in favour of remaining) or if they should reflect the views of the voters in their constituency, if they don't do the latter (particularly in areas with high out votes) then they may find themselves voted out at the next election

    Finally my politics degree is useful for something!

    Yes the difference between what the MPs themselves think and what the public voted for though is massive based on June information.

    An estimate of Parliamentary Constituencies on the first past the post basis would have meant Leave won 401 out of 632 (63%) - a much more significant sounding victory than the 52:48 by individual vote. (Source: https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/revised-estimates-of-leave-vote-share-in-westminster-constituencies-c4612f06319d#.n75jmbxkn )

    An estimate of MPs at the same time would have given the result 479 REMAIN and only 158 LEAVE. 75% the other way. (Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946 )

    I would suspect that some MPs will vote with their constituency over their conscience but some will undoubtedly stick with their conscience based on these numbers.

  • T'Dan - how's your running going by the way?

    And married life?

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭

    This is the conundrum for MP's, if they ignore the will of their constituents then they may end up out of the job come the next election which has always got to factor into these things, its why you hear "we respect the outcome of the referendum/the people have spoken" so much from the pro remain mp's

    running's going ok, managed to avoid breaking my ankle 3 weeks before Liverpool marathon in may (badly sprained instead) which put me out for a month or two, but I've got the abbey dash this weekend so I'm going to see if I can get into (or even sub) 45.

    Married life started out a little patchy due to work issues, but we now have a bouncing 7 month old to keep us busy!

  • Me, Muddy,Mr V and Madbee are doing the Dash - we'll be warming up somewhere near a coffee shop (????????????????) - Muddy's plan!

    Shame about the Marahon - did you defer until next year or have you ditched that plan for now?

    [Apologies to all Innees and Outies for my impromptu catch up - T'Dan has been AWOL for a while]

  • but so often the MPs will vote with their own minds and not with their constituents..

    fox hunting for a start.....the numbers of people in the country supporting it is not reflected in the votes of the MPs......

    it happens time and time again.......

    and they still get reelected because peoples memories are short and there isnt much alternatives

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭

    unfortunately they didn't allow defferals for that one, but managed to sign up to Manchester then get into London, so its a double marathon month next year

    a coffee shop? in Leeds? unheard of! I'm assuming this is all on overdone it so i'll pop over there rather than continuing the thread jacking

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    I'm more concerned in why it is a group of people who work in 'law' are more powerful than anyone else in existence.

    Even the PM and Government has to do as they are told by these people.

    Want to deport a terrorist?

    No chance if the law says no.

     

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭

    I'm not sure I follow ric, are you saying that those elected into office should have the power to do anything they like? The reason the law exists is as a check and balance on the power of the houses of parliament, if the government wants to amend them they can make a law to change it, but it'd have to pass both houses with a majority to do so providing its not trying to do something that supersedes laws that emanate from a higher court (e.g. the court of human rights)

    Additionally law of "the people" can be very subjective, what's fine one day can be unacceptable the next and vice versa. Without laws being in place beforehand you've got a recipe for anarchy & totalitarianism

  • RicF wrote (see)

    I'm more concerned in why it is a group of people who work in 'law' are more powerful than anyone else in existence.

    Even the PM and Government has to do as they are told by these people.

    Want to deport a terrorist?

    No chance if the law says no.

     

    Struggling to see which bit of the law being impartial you don't get. Parliament makes laws, the judiciary enacts them. Judges don't base their rulings on their own opinions or anyone else's, they interpret the law and find accordingly. 

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    Remind which law the Government was breaking in this matter.

    Or was it a matter of procedure?

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭
    If they're a U.K. Citizen then the un convention on human rights i'd expect as they'd be stateless
  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    My level of understanding of politics and the finer points of law is sketchy at best, so I'll stand back a bit.

     

  • RicF wrote (see)

    Remind which law the Government was breaking in this matter.

    Or was it a matter of procedure?


    The government says that it has the right to trigger A50, the law says it must be parliament. Without consent of parliament the government could do whatever it pleased. There is a good reason why referendums are banned in Germany.

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

     referendums are banned in Germany.

    Just had a read.

    Interesting.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • I think it'll delay it but not sure about killing it off altogether.
  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭

    yes, damn the sovereignty of parliament to make decisions based on the authority of the elected body over a party leader!

  • TheDan wrote (see)

    yes, damn the sovereignty of parliament to make decisions based on the authority of the elected body over a party leader!

    Yes, how dare they!

    Personally I don't see how any leave voter who isn't actually a racist/bigot/xenophobe can have anything to complain about. It means that the government have to come up with a Brexit strategy that's half way acceptable to all those voters and politicians who didn't want it as well as those who did, otherwise the repercussions will go on for decades.

     

    If everybody gets some of what they wanted and some of what they didn't it could be the best outcome. 

     

  • RicFRicF ✭✭✭

    If everybody gets some of what they wanted and some of what they didn't it could be the best outcome.

    This could apply to any moment in time regardless of Brexit.

    No matter what the situation is/ was/ will be/ might be/ won't be, it won't make any difference to the majority of people.

    They just do what they do, what they've always done, if they can.

     

     

  • It is what happens after every election. You can only please some of the people some of the time so it goes, not piss off half of the people all of the time.

    By the way, the right wing press today, you would think we were living in a fascist state ffs image

  • 15West15West ✭✭✭

    It's the right thing that this should be debated and passed by parliament, that's how things work...but not sure it will change the outcome too much.

  • TheDanTheDan ✭✭✭
    I think the tabloids are missing the point, this is less about changing the outcome, and more making sure the decision isn't overly screwed to a single viewpoint
Sign In or Register to comment.