Let's Get Political!

[Batch]

How will this new grouping differentiate itself from the Lib Dems?  They seem keen to keep some separation (talking of co-operating with, but not joining the Lib Dems).  But they certainly seem to have a lot in common with them.

Lib Dems are still a bit of a toxic brand though. Assuming the new groups in tention is to become electable joining was never an option.
Besides, people want 'different' to get behind. I know I do.

As for how they differentiate, that's a difficult one. Had there been/if there were a GE or another Brexit vote they could have used it as a vehicle. All they have at the moment is what they had before- a voice - just from a different part of the house.

So I think TBD.

[RobertT]

Looks to me like people positioning ahead of a General Election - either Brexit No deal goes through some how or the Govt. end up having to just go back to the polls again.  Either way they've distanced themselves from their Leadership to give themselves a chance of reelection.

Some of the characters in the list hardly have what I would call aligned political minds.  A single issue party maybe, the opposite of UKIP.

Who said Lib Dems were Centrist?  Been a long time since they could take that label, they shifted well to the left when Blair was in charge after he grabbed that.  If anything, Corbyn would join that party today if he was starting out.  Blair certainly changed the Party, Corbyn looks out of sorts with the MP's and much more aligned to Lib Dem current policy positions.  The Libs used to be a successful party by not really having defined political positions and were able to take on local politics instead - they's be successful against both parties in odd locations.  Once they moved into old labour ground and then got tarred by breaking some of those promises, they lost credibility.

[Reg Smeeton]

Lib Dems are still a bit of a toxic brand though. Assuming the new groups in tention is to become electable joining was never an option.
Besides, people want 'different' to get behind. I know I do.

As for how they differentiate, that's a difficult one. Had there been/if there were a GE or another Brexit vote they could have used it as a vehicle. All they have at the moment is what they had before- a voice - just from a different part of the house.

So I think TBD.

The only really noticeable difference between the Lab 8 and the rest of the party is on Brexit.... these are remainers. It should be noted that for all their rhetoric, when it comes to a manifesto, like in 2017 under Corbyn Labour is a moderate centrist party.  It stood in 2017 on a commitment to honour the 16 referendum.  If the 8 couldn't take that they should have stood down then.  

If they feel the electorate has changed its mind on Brexit, then they should put it to the test, by by-election

[pauld]

So now the Independents have got more MPs than the DUP doesn't that mean Teresa will give them a billion quid from her magic money tree?

[ReadingRed]

The Electoral Commission found the referendum unlawful. So should A50 be revoked? There's a major appeal in the High Court today, streamed on YouTube.

[Bogus Dave]

I’ve read that If the referendum was binding, rather than advisory, then it would already have been declared unlawful and results invalidated. Don’t know how true that is though

[Reg Smeeton]

I’ve read that If the referendum was binding, rather than advisory, then it would already have been declared unlawful and results invalidated. Don’t know how true that is though

So what you're saying is ..... if it was legal, it would then become illegal, but because it wasn't, being like a giant opinion poll, as soon as MP's voted for Art 50, that was that?

[ReadingRed]

Yes, that's been established in law.
Today's appeal is about whether
1) it would be reasonable and democratic, in common law, for the PM to continue as if the referendum was binding.
2) It breaches a Vienna Convention on electoral law to which the UK are signatories.

[Ardiles]

None of the major news outlets seem to be covering this.

[ReadingRed]

The appeal has been refused. Reasons for judgement to follow.
Boo.

[RedRag]

Thanks Reading Red.

In essence, had the referendum been binding it would have been set aside but as it was advisory May has been free to treat it as binding without need for any regard to the proven illegalities.  

Have to say counsel for the appellants did seem on the back foot but it will be interesting to read the reasoning.  The judges seemed reluctant to apply the Common Law to any remedy.  Or perhaps they had metaphorically ticked the "no publicity" box with the Daily Mail.

Will you post the reasoning for us?

[RobertT]

I might not be reading things right, but isn't this simple:

We had a vote - which had no mechanism to enforce anything, so it was a big opinion poll
The elected MP's later determined to serve notice, via A50, to the EU of our intention to leave
Our elected MP's are then free to try and negotiate any manner of deals, such as trade, with the EU - they don't have to come to any deal - by serving notice we leave regardless
That is the whole point - the vote gave the nod to Parliament that they have "Control" and need to get on with applying said "Control"

If we don't like what they do, we vote for other people to do something else, but while they are in Parliament they are our representatives and we take the outcome of what they vote for.

If they decide to agree a deal that leaves us in a Single Market, tough shit.

If they agree to just leave with no deal, tough shit.

[chalkies_shorts]

Thats my take on it as well. As soon as article 50 is triggered it's game on - deal or no deal. They can, of course, withdraw article 50 and back as we were. The EU may allow us to extend article 50 but are under no obligation to do so. We're entering squeeky bum time.
I fully expect parliament to vote down Mays deal and not allow us to leave with no deal. Parliament to revoke article 50 and a general election.

[RedRag]

I fully agree with (and also respect) Robert and Chalkies but as an embittered "loser"   I am very unhappy that so little regard (indeed no regard in TMs case) has been paid to the illegalities of the Referendum vote.

May wanted to trigger Art 50 with no parliamentary backing and to keep Parliament out of the process.

No Brexiter and few others asserted that the referendum result was only "advisory"

It was touted as a straight, all or nothing "get over it" victory.

We were promised a "red, white and blue Brexit".  Zilch about due regard to the wishes of the 48%  in formulating a departure from the EU.

It was only thanks to Gina Miller that Theresa May was forced by our own Supreme Court to have a HC vote on triggering Art. 50.  Miller (criminally) and our own judges were horribly villified and treated as traitors for asserting Parliamentary democracy over the executive, following an "advisory" referendum.

It is therefore a real satisfaction to see some acceptance now of this principle of British Constitutional law.

However the Government hypocrisy now is that after years of "it's the Will of the People", the Government has been arguing in court that the Referendum was "only advisory" and "not binding".  Because had it been binding, the referendum would have been voided due to the illegalities of the Leave Campaign.  

For me I am very happy with Parliamentary sovreignty.  IMO "Will of the People" is much more marginal than 52:48.

[chalkies_shorts]

MPs voted overwhelmingly to invoke article 50. There is not a fucking chance in hell anyone voted on the basis of it being advisory. The government made it clear they would act on it and they did by invoking article 50.
Politics in this country is first past the post. It was to be expected the winners decision would be respected but that the losers would fight on.
The way this government have handled brexit is fucking disgraceful regardless of which side of the fence you come down on. The opposition have been even worse when it should not be possible.
May is managing to piss off everyone and Corbyn is as effective as Shaun close.
Expect a lot more shit.