Let's Get Political!

[Reg Smeeton]

It's more open-ended than that. They can instruct the govt to resume negotiations or they can scrap the whole thing, call for another referendum or do whatever they like. It gives Parliament the ability to either stall Brexit indefinitely or even try to overturn it all together.

Fair enough, but I thought the "Miller" case provided Parliament with their say on Brexit which they used by voting 498-114 in favour of triggering Article 50.  So it's about Brexit terms and the need to avoid the right's wet dream of no deal.

[jayohaitchenn]

It's more open-ended than that. They can instruct the govt to resume negotiations or they can scrap the whole thing, call for another referendum or do whatever they like. It gives Parliament the ability to either stall Brexit indefinitely or even try to overturn it all together.

Keeping all the options open is a good thing. I don't buy the "we voted out so that's what we now must do no matter the cost" argument. We are governed by a representative democracy. If a majority of the representatives think that leaving the EU with whatever deal the Maybot comes up with is worse for the UK then they should be able to stop it.

[pauld]

Keeping all the options open is a good thing. I don't buy the "we voted out so that's what we now must do no matter the cost" argument. We are governed by a representative democracy. If a majority of the representatives think that leaving the EU with whatever deal the Maybot comes up with is worse for the UK then they should be able to stop it.

But then we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place. (And there's a very good argument for that tbf). But we did - the politicians can't call a referendum then ignore the results if they don't like them

[horlock07]

But then we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place. (And there's a very good argument for that tbf). But we did - the politicians can't call a referendum then ignore the results if they don't like them

Yet isn't parliament at present just exercising this sovereignty thing that we heard so much about, I don't recall us becoming a direct democracy.

Fair enough, but I thought the "Miller" case provided Parliament with their say on Brexit which they used by voting 498-114 in favour of triggering Article 50.  So it's about Brexit terms and the need to avoid the right's wet dream of no deal.

Don't even get started on the legality of the triggering of A50, its an absolute fucking minefield and the government, as with all legal elements of this process have either a) been entirely inept in doing things in a legal manner or b) deliberately fucked it up to give them a get out of free card in the future (delete as appropriate depending on how you view conspiracy theories!)

It was nice to hear Liam Fox on R4 this morning, saying nothing and just repeating the will of the people mantra in multiple different ways to answer each question, when is someone going to ask him what the fucking hell he has actually been doing for the last 2 years?

[Batch]

. But we did - the Tories can't call a referendum then ignore the results because it'll fuck them for generations, even if they know it'll leave the country better off

fixed it for you.

[pauld]

Yet isn't parliament at present just exercising this sovereignty thing that we heard so much about, I don't recall us becoming a direct democracy.

Yes and that's the conundrum behind calling a referendum in the first place. But if you're going to call one, you have to respect the result. It's beyond farce to do otherwise (not that I'm suggesting that the whole process isn't a farce), but it would also be very dangerous for public confidence in the whole democratic process.

[Ardiles]

The only way out of this is a massive, British muddle-though/compromise/fudge.  It's what we do.

[Batch]

well, what if the public changed their mind.

I mean you aren't wrong, but to be stuck on something we no longer want is sad.  The leave vote could also increase too of course.

I'm not disagreeing, it won't happen, it's a shame it's not even an option.

Cameron has to be the worst prime minister in a century. Gambled and lost just to shut up in party euro scepticism.

[Batch]

The only way out of this is a massive, British muddle-though/compromise/fudge.  It's what we do.

least shit compromise. Nobody wins

[Reg Smeeton]

Cameron has to be the worst prime minister in a century. Gambled and lost just to shut up in party euro scepticism.

Cameron may well be judged as the worst Prime Minister ever, although May could push him close.  Lord North, also Eton and Oxford, who lost the American colonies, is considered a contender.

[Abrahammer]

Whose judging though?

Labour or Tory supporters?

[pauld]

Who's judging though?
(sorry couldn't resist)
Labour or Tory supporters?

I think "History" was implicit in Reg's statement. But I don't think anyone either side of the political divide is impressed with Cameron. Apart from possibly George Osbourne.

[Reg Smeeton]

I think "History" was implicit in Reg's statement. But I don't think anyone either side of the political divide is impressed with Cameron. Apart from possibly George Osbourne.

Indeed. I was taught that it was George Germain.... Viscount Sackville who was responsible for the loss of the 13 colony states, but history now lays the blame at North's door.

 I suppose history may come to blame Johnson rather than Cameron for the current mess and it may be that it will require The Honourable Member for the 18th Century to sort it out.

[horlock07]

I think "History" was implicit in Reg's statement. But I don't think anyone either side of the political divide is impressed with Cameron. Apart from possibly George Osbourne.

I don't know, Hostile Environment and the referendum were on his watch so I suspect the far right of the party came away reasonably happy!

[jayohaitchenn]

But then we shouldn't have had a referendum in the first place. (And there's a very good argument for that tbf). But we did - the politicians can't call a referendum then ignore the results if they don't like them

Sorry disagree again. A referendum has the same legal status as an opinion poll. I'd consider it the civic duty of an MP to ignore the 'Will Of The People' if that will was causing major harm to the country.

And if the electorate disagree, they can vote said MP out at the next election.