Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Article 50 decision imminent! Parliament could vote. Watch

    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The referendum that gave Scotland its parliament was not treated as something the Prime Minister could then rubber stamp with no recourse to the Westminster parliament - it required an act debated and approved by national MPs.

    What May is trying to do strongly resembles the dictatorship powers of Henry VIII and she's even seeking to use one of his legal mechanisms to do it!

    This with a tiny majority in the House. You couldn't make it up.
    It isn't the Commons that matters. It will pass easily because a lot of Labour MPs know on which side their bread needs to be buttered.

    The Lords will prove the stumbling block. Amazing how soi distant progressives are lining up with a bunch of unelected nobles and political placemen and cronies.

    My money is on a General Election this year with the unelected Lords blocking the people being the issue.

    And, as ever, seemingly nowadays, the left will be on the wrong side of this debate. With Labour being decimated as the party of immigration and in.

    Say what you like about Brexit it has made politics exciting! We could see the end of the Labour Party and the House of Lords at the end of all this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    Fraser Nelson on point as ever http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01...ty-parliament/

    Looking forward to Iron Lady II pushing Clean Brexit through Parliament regardless
    This paragraph doesn't make sense:

    The 17.4 million who voted for Britain to leave the European Union were giving advice, rather than an instruction, to Parliament. This ought not to be a controversial point. As the judgement said, David Cameron chose to hold a consultative referendum, rather than a legally-binding one (as the AV referendum had been). And why wasn’t the EU referendum legally binding? For the same reason that the 2014 Scottish referendum wasn’t legally-binding: it would be unthinkable for parliament to ignore such “advice”, or stand athwart the result of that referendum. That’s not how we do things in Britain. The Irish may ask people to vote again if they give the wrong answer in an EU referendum; the French president may act in defiance of referendums there. But in Britain, there is – or should be – no serious prospect of politicians trying to subvert direct democracy.
    His reason that the referendum was not legally-binding is that it would be "unthinkable for parliament to ignore" the result. If it is indeed so unthinkable, why wasn't the referendum legally-binding instead of consultative? What's the point having it consultative if it is so unthinkable? Parliament can of course, if they wish, ignore or "stand athwart the result". His promise that that's just not how we Brits do things is meaningless. Why give politicians the option of being able to "subvert direct democracy" with a consultative referendum? Surely it's better for his argument simply to make it legally-binding?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    claiming she had that right when she didn't..
    I don't think you can blame a government for taking a view of its powers that is wider than the position which subsequent litigation decides to be the case. That's why we have courts. Also if there were really no legitimate room for doubt the appeal to the Supreme Court wouldn't have been allowed.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    The FTSE is up - evidently the City wants the Single Market and thinks this is the start of that road.

    "
    And sterling is down on the day against the dollar. (As I write this, it may change, obviously).
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    And sterling is down on the day against the dollar. (As I write this, it may change, obviously).
    Which according to you must be wonderful? As our pound is so overvalued....
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    Here it comes... 9.30am - then we know if Parliament must approve the invocation of Article 50, committing the UK to withdrawal from the EU.
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics...rger-eu-treaty

    It will be a relief if Lord Neuberger, head of the Supreme Court, confirms that it must - it seems deeply undemocratic for the Prime Minister alone to be able to invoke such a profound national decision, referendum or no referendum.

    The whole background to the referendum was against our national traditions - Britain is a parliamentary country, not a populist dictatorship - and was a cave-in to the hard right, to foreign oligarchs who control our media and to extremely dodgy politicians like Farage.

    EDIT: It's done - 8-3 in favour of it going back to Parliament.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-38723261
    It still is "no referendum" legally speaking the referendum was just a giant poll

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Also, not sure this really changes anything except putting more pressure on Labour

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by l'etranger)
    I have no idea why OP is being triumphant over the outcome of this. This makes Brexit more likely for two reasons, Parliament will vote to leave which in turn will strengthen the mandate to leave and crucially there was a unanimous decision that the decision to leave does not have to pass through the devolved parliaments.
    I find that second bit very surprising, the EU recognises Scotland as a country within the UK so I expected some form of "all devolved governments must agree"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ManiaMuse)
    It's fairly irrelevant. It will get through the Commons easily enough.

    If the Lords try to block or delay it then I'm sure May will swiftly revive the proposed Lords reforms. It's not in their interests to risk their cushy jobs for life.

    Also the judges ruled that devolved administrations don't have to be given any say in it so that's a blow for the likes of Sturgeon and whoever that Welsh guy in the papers yesterday.
    I think the Lords would be independent enough, but now they are loaded with Tory peers.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • TSR Group Staff
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    It isn't the Commons that matters. It will pass easily because a lot of Labour MPs know on which side their bread needs to be buttered.

    The Lords will prove the stumbling block. Amazing how soi distant progressives are lining up with a bunch of unelected nobles and political placemen and cronies.

    My money is on a General Election this year with the unelected Lords blocking the people being the issue.
    The scenario you've painted here is practically impossible.

    The Lords cannot block the Commons completely, though they can slow it down a fair amount in order to allow more scrutiny and to prevent poorly-written bills from reaching royal assent. They are entirely within their rights to do that for Brexit if needed, since that's the system we have in place for every law. The idea that this system would suddenly lead to a snap election is ridiculous.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by macromicro)
    I agree, but one cannot in the same breath praise democracy yet deny referendums on crucial decisions. How is the hoi polloi considered fit to vote for its leader if not considered fit to vote in referendums?
    That's the point. We elect our parliamentary representatives who we entrust with making informed decisions on our behalf. We don't just take a plebiscite on every issue. It would be both impractical and socially disasterous.

    Your criticism also applies equally to Remain voters - who were an even smaller percentage of the people.
    On the question "do you want to fundamentally change things or leave them as they are", it is reasonable to assume that everyone who wanted to change the system would vote for that change.

    If you have 100 people in the "Tea or Coffee" queue and you ask "who wants tea" and 35 people put their hands up, it is reasonable to assume that the remaining 65 people all want coffee, because if they didn't, they would have put their hand up for tea.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Which according to you must be wonderful? As our pound is so overvalued....
    No it was overvalued BEFORE the referendum. It has overshot to the downside and is undervalued now.

    But if, as the poster I was responding too thinks, all those currency traders and speculators who control the price by their billions of pounds worth of trades believed this ruling made membership of the single market was more probable, and that was good for the pound, sterling would rise markedly, would it not?

    When in fact it rose markedly after the PMs speech saying we would LEAVE the single market.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    The scenario you've painted here is practically impossible.

    The Lords cannot block the Commons completely, though they can slow it down a fair amount in order to allow more scrutiny and to prevent poorly-written bills from reaching royal assent. They are entirely within their rights to do that for Brexit if needed, since that's the system we have in place for every law. The idea that this system would suddenly lead to a snap election is ridiculous.
    If you say so.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Apparently there are more than 400 MPs who will vote to invoke 50. (Source: Guido Fawkes).

    Let the unelected Lords try and overturn a clear referendum majority AND the elected House of Commons! Ha ha ha!

    Can you spell suicide your noble, UNELECTED Lords?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    That's the point. We elect our parliamentary representatives who we entrust with making informed decisions on our behalf. We don't just take a plebiscite on every issue. It would be both impractical and socially disasterous.

    On the question "do you want to fundamentally change things or leave them as they are", it is reasonable to assume that everyone who wanted to change the system would vote for that change.

    If you have 100 people in the "Tea or Coffee" queue and you ask "who wants tea" and 35 people put their hands up, it is reasonable to assume that the remaining 65 people all want coffee, because if they didn't, they would have put their hand up for tea.
    This is so stupid. If you don't vote, you have no say. Simple as that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    That's the point. We elect our parliamentary representatives who we entrust with making informed decisions on our behalf. We don't just take a plebiscite on every issue. It would be both impractical and socially disasterous.
    You are missing my point - why are we to be trusted in the crucial electing of our leader but not in voting on crucial referendums? Do you not agree that voting Trump is no less crucial than voting Brexit, for example? The foundations supporting democracy is not a pick 'n mix; you cannot sing the praises of its virtues in elections yet distrust the public for referendums. And you are teetering on a strawman with your adding the extension "on every issue". Neither of us have been talking of every issue, only of crucial ones.

    (Original post by QE2)
    On the question "do you want to fundamentally change things or leave them as they are", it is reasonable to assume that everyone who wanted to change the system would vote for that change.
    And precisely how is this different to re-electing a leader (no change) versus electing a new leader (change)? Why do leaders ever win more than one term in power if your assumption is indeed reasonable?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    No it was overvalued BEFORE the referendum. It has overshot to the downside and is undervalued now.

    But if, as the poster I was responding too thinks, all those currency traders and speculators who control the price by their billions of pounds worth of trades believed this ruling made membership of the single market was more probable, and that was good for the pound, sterling would rise markedly, would it not?

    When in fact it rose markedly after the PMs speech saying we would LEAVE the single market.
    I am sorry, but that's not what happened.

    The pound had a rally when Theresa May said the final Brexit deal will go for parliamentary approval. The hope being that parliamentary approval will act as a minor buffer to a really hard Brexit deal (no customs union, no separate deal for certain sectors etc). The pound tanked when she only mentioned that the UK will be leaving the single market (sky interview).

    The downside of the pound hasn't even been close to valued yet. The only thing markets have attempted to value is uncertainty. Real valuation of the pound can only happen when the final Brexit deal emerges. And if it's no deal then FX traders (UBS, Goldman etc) are looking at a very real possibility of 1.15 against USD and parity with Euro.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by StephenWond3rboy)
    I am sorry, but that's not what happened.

    The pound had a rally when Theresa May said the final Brexit deal will go for parliamentary approval. The hope being that parliamentary approval will act as a minor buffer to a really hard Brexit deal (no customs union, no separate deal for certain sectors etc). The pound tanked when she only mentioned that the UK will be leaving the single market (sky interview).

    The downside of the pound hasn't even been close to valued yet. The only thing markets have attempted to value is uncertainty. Real valuation of the pound can only happen when the final Brexit deal emerges. And if it's no deal then FX traders (UBS, Goldman etc) are looking at a very real possibility of 1.15 against USD and parity with Euro.
    Because no trade deal would really strengthen confidence in the Euro. Absolute la la land. I'm genuinely under the impression that traders don't watch the news. It's been clear that we will be leaving the single market and customs union since May set up the DfIT.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by astutehirstute)
    No it was overvalued BEFORE the referendum. It has overshot to the downside and is undervalued now.

    But if, as the poster I was responding too thinks, all those currency traders and speculators who control the price by their billions of pounds worth of trades believed this ruling made membership of the single market was more probable, and that was good for the pound, sterling would rise markedly, would it not?

    When in fact it rose markedly after the PMs speech saying we would LEAVE the single market.
    It wasn't overvalued. Out of all the arguments made about the referendum on both sides, arguing that it's a good thing the pound has decreased, has got to be one of the most ridiculous.

    A strong currency keeps inflation low which is key.

    Like heck you would have argued that it was good for the pound to fall had we remained.

    There's no consistency or honesty on either side of this debate.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I reckon at least 3-1 in the commons

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.