Britain's May defeated in parliament over Brexit blueprint

[webfact]

Britain's May defeated in parliament over Brexit blueprint

By Elizabeth Piper and William James

 

Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May meets the Prime Minister of Bulgaria, Boyko Borissov, at 10 Downing Street in London, December 11, 2017. REUTERS/Toby Melville

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Prime Minister Theresa May's government was defeated on Wednesday, when lawmakers forced through changes to its Brexit blueprint that ministers said could endanger Britain's departure from the European Union.

 

In a blow to May, already weakened after losing her Conservative Party's majority in a June election, the 650-seat parliament voted 309 to 305 in favour of an amendment to hand lawmakers more say over a final exit deal with the EU.

 

Up until the last minute of an often bitter debate in parliament, May's team tried to convince lawmakers in her party to give up their demands and side with a government fearful that the move will weaken its hand in tough Brexit negotiations.

 

Members of Parliament (MPs) are debating the EU withdrawal bill, which will repeal the 1972 legislation binding Britain to the EU and copy existing EU law into domestic law to ensure legal continuity after 'Exit Day' on March 29, 2019.

 

In focus on Wednesday was an amendment put forward by Conservative lawmaker and former attorney general Dominic Grieve who wants parliament to have a meaningful vote on any deal before it is finalised and for it to be written into law.

 

"There is a time for everybody to stand up and be counted," Grieve told parliament earlier, criticising some fellow members of the Conservative Party for calling him a traitor over his decision to vote against the government.

 

He dismissed a last-minute pledge by justice minister Dominic Raab for government to write the promise of a meaningful vote into law later on its journey through both houses of parliament as coming "too late".

 

The government was "disappointed" by the vote, a spokeswoman said in a statement, adding that "this amendment does not prevent us from preparing our statute book for exit day".

 

But with May due at an EU summit on Thursday to encourage the other 27 leaders to approve a move to the second phase of Brexit talks and begin a discussion about future trade, the defeat comes at a difficult time for the prime minister.

 

In the European Parliament, which must also ratify any withdrawal treaty with Britain, its Brexit coordinator cheekily tweeted that his British counterparts had "taken back control" - a reference to the catchphrase of pro-Brexit campaigners.

 

"A good day for democracy," added Guy Verhofstadt.

 

DEEP DIVISIONS

 

The EU withdrawal bill has been the focus of seven days of often bitter debate, underscoring the deep divisions over Brexit not only among the Conservatives but also in the main opposition Labour Party and across the country.

 

It has also highlighted May's weakness.

 

In June, she gambled on a snap election to strengthen her party's majority in the 650-seat parliament but instead bungled her campaign and ended up with a minority government propped up by the 10 votes of a small, pro-Brexit Northern Irish party.

 

Since then she has struggled to assert her authority over a Conservative Party which is deeply divided over the best route out of the EU.

 

"This defeat is a humiliating loss of authority for the government on the eve of the European Council meeting," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said in a statement.

 

"Theresa May has resisted democratic accountability. Her refusal to listen means she will now have to accept Parliament taking back control."

 

Earlier, May had tried to persuade lawmakers to vote with the government for her Brexit blueprint, saying Grieve's amendment would put added time pressure on a government which wants to make Britain ready to leave the EU in March 2019.

 

"That could be at a very late stage in the proceedings which could mean that we are not able to have the orderly and smooth exit from the European Union that we wish to have," she told parliament before an hours-long debate on the exit plan.

 

Her spokesman said the government had "in good faith come forward with a strong package of concessions to deal with the spirit of the amendment".

 

Pro-Brexit lawmakers fear the amendment could force Britain to weaken its negotiating stance by offering parliament the opportunity of forcing ministers back to the negotiating table if it feels any final deal is not good enough.

 

Raab said that could convince the EU that Britain would not walk away from a bad deal.

 

"Actually if that looked likely we'd end up with worse terms, and we'd be positively incentivising the EU to give us worse terms," he told parliament.

 

(Additional reporting by Kate Holton in London and Alastair Macdonald in Brussels; Editing by Catherine Evans and Andrew Heavens)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-14

[animalmagic]

I may be somewhat old fashioned and rather cynical, but I can't help wondering why elected politicians who are there to implement the wishes of the electorate who put them there in the first place, can decide to stop something happening that the people voted for in a free and democratic process.  Of course, the cynical part of me thinks they may be trying to ensure that they can get on the EU gravy train one day when they leave Parliament; if they manage to block the aforementioned process and prevent Brexit.

Just thinking out loud.

[Orac]

16 minutes ago, animalmagic said:

I may be somewhat old fashioned and rather cynical, but I can't help wondering why elected politicians who are there to implement the wishes of the electorate who put them there in the first place, can decide to stop something happening that the people voted for in a free and democratic process.  Of course, the cynical part of me thinks they may be trying to ensure that they can get on the EU gravy train one day when they leave Parliament; if they manage to block the aforementioned process and prevent Brexit.

Just thinking out loud.

 

Their job is to hold the govt to account as the representatives of the people which is exactly what they are doing. The mandate the govt is working to is to leave the EU with the electorate giving them no specific instructions  how to do so making it essential that parliament do its job properly.

 

 

[Grouse]

Burke explains this far more eloquently than I can

 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

 

Rather old English but worth persevering with ?

 

Members of parliament are NOT there merely to present the wishes of a majority of their constituents. They are there to represent their constituents best interests and those of the country as a whole. A far more onerous task!

Edited December 14, 2017 by Grouse

[flossie35]

Why do people keep referring to a mandate? There wasn't one: the referendum was advisory; only 37% of registered voters voted "leave"; and anyway it's for Parliament to decide whether to take the advice or not. If you get bad advice you don't take it if you have any sense.

[Chaichara]

Britain  is not  run  by  an executive presidency and May  is not  the president. So fortunately  the UK kind  of democracy  does have some  checks and balances.

The Brexit  reforendum was a failed excercise. A popular suffrage of this kind  (such  as also  Scottish independence) is so  important  that  it  should need to  be carried by  at  least  a two-thirds majority.

The actual result  of the reforemndum was completely  unexpected and nobody  was prepared for the can of worms it  would open, a government  with  a weak  majority that  would be left  to  carry  the decision  through, and the ultimate cost  to  the taxpayers and international  trade, of withdrawal  from  the Union. The actual  ripples of withdrawal  will  be felt  for  another  two  decades. Not  only, but  there are also issues to  be resolved with  the UK-Irish  border, and the strong Scottish wish  to  remain  in  the Union -  internal  affairs  that  are not  directly  concerned with  the international  politics of Brussels.

If the referendum were to  be held again it would now almost  certainly  go the other way. If the government and parliament  can't  make up  their minds in  a timely  manner, maybe this would be the only  solution.

 

That  said (and just  my  opinion), none of the traditional  British  political  parties are currently  in  a sufficiently  strong position, either with  the electorate or within themselves, to  lead the country  properly.

 

[Enoon]

2 hours ago, animalmagic said:

I may be somewhat old fashioned and rather cynical, but I can't help wondering why elected politicians who are there to implement the wishes of the electorate who put them there in the first place, can decide to stop something happening that the people voted for in a free and democratic process.  Of course, the cynical part of me thinks they may be trying to ensure that they can get on the EU gravy train one day when they leave Parliament; if they manage to block the aforementioned process and prevent Brexit.

Just thinking out loud.

 

No you are just plain uninformed.

 

They get their place in Parliament on the basis of their election promises.

 

Only the Conservatives promised to hold, and act upon, the results of a referendum. 

 

As the referendum showed, as good as half the participants rejected Brexit.   Their interests, the "opposition", are being democratically represented.......in Parliament.

 

Don't be too upset........you are far from alone (among the UK public) in your misconceptions of the nature of our Constitutional System.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Enoon

[nahkit]

24 minutes ago, flossie35 said:

Why do people keep referring to a mandate? There wasn't one: the referendum was advisory; only 37% of registered voters voted "leave"; and anyway it's for Parliament to decide whether to take the advice or not. If you get bad advice you don't take it if you have any sense.

And even less voted remain, 34.73% (of registered voters).

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

No you are just plain uninformed.

 

They get their place in Parliament on the basis of their election promises.

 

Only the Conservatives promised to hold, and act upon, the results of a referendum.

 

 

In a perfect world and all that.

 

However, I'm glad May has been brought down, having proven to be a terrible PM. Going for the general election was a disastrous decision, and is down, apparently, to her. Hopefully she will be gone in short order.

Cameron may not have been everyone's cup of tea, but I can't see him making as many mistakes as she.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, nahkit said:

And even less voted remain, 34.73% (of registered voters).

Surely, in a matter of such significance it should be decided by a majority of eligible voters, not by a majority of a minority vote?

I support exit, but the way this has been handled is the worst of all worst options.

[nahkit]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Surely, in a matter of such significance it should be decided by a majority of eligible voters, not by a majority of a minority vote?

I support exit, but the way this has been handled is the worst of all worst options.

I'm not sure what you mean by " a majority of a minority vote ".

 

The turnout for the vote was just over 72% of eligible voters which is the second highest turnout since world war 2.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 minutes ago, nahkit said:

I'm not sure what you mean by " a majority of a minority vote ".

 

The turnout for the vote was just over 72% of eligible voters which is the second highest turnout since world war 2.

Perhaps I put it badly, but I meant it should be over 50% of 100% of eligible voters, or if that is unrealistic ( Australia has compulsory voting so that's possible ) 2 thirds of the actual vote.

[vogie]

51 minutes ago, flossie35 said:

Why do people keep referring to a mandate? There wasn't one: the referendum was advisory; only 37% of registered voters voted "leave"; and anyway it's for Parliament to decide whether to take the advice or not. If you get bad advice you don't take it if you have any sense.

Please point out where it says "advisory" infact it states quite the opposite.

A sad day for democracy.

[Enoon]

45 minutes ago, nahkit said:

And even less voted remain, 34.73% (of registered voters).

 

Neither percentage has any real relevance because, as I shall never get tired of saying (until the Constitutional arrangements of the UK are changed):

 

A referendum has no Constitutional power or legal authority in the UK.  It is no more than an "opinion poll" upon which Parliament may, if it chooses, base its opinions and make its decisions.

 

Anyone who ever thought that it had anymore intrinsic power than an opinion poll in a newspaper was/is severely uninformed and deluded.

 

The truth is that nobody in power, government or Parliament is presently taking the results of the "Great Opinion Poll" into consideration when making their choices/decisions.

 

It's "History".

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Enoon

[RuamRudy]

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

A sad day for democracy.

 

How do our democratically elected representatives voting in a democratic process in our parliament represent a sad day for democracy? 

[Kiwiken]

2 hours ago, animalmagic said:

I may be somewhat old fashioned and rather cynical, but I can't help wondering why elected politicians who are there to implement the wishes of the electorate who put them there in the first place, can decide to stop something happening that the people voted for in a free and democratic process.  Of course, the cynical part of me thinks they may be trying to ensure that they can get on the EU gravy train one day when they leave Parliament; if they manage to block the aforementioned process and prevent Brexit.

Just thinking out loud.

They do this in all so called Democracies because since Magna Carta Democracy has not matured any further. They all think once elected they are the Barons to laud over the Peasantry

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, animalmagic said:

I may be somewhat old fashioned and rather cynical, but I can't help wondering why elected politicians who are there to implement the wishes of the electorate who put them there in the first place, can decide to stop something happening that the people voted for in a free and democratic process.  Of course, the cynical part of me thinks they may be trying to ensure that they can get on the EU gravy train one day when they leave Parliament; if they manage to block the aforementioned process and prevent Brexit.

Just thinking out loud.

Perhaps they are thinking of the rights of the 48% who voted against leave, 48% is not a majority but it is a lot of people who feel disenfranchised. Those who voted for leave wanted democracy, democracy is supposed to work in parliament with debate, not according to the will of one or two people in the cabinet.

[nahkit]

17 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps I put it badly, but I meant it should be over 50% of 100% of eligible voters, or if that is unrealistic ( Australia has compulsory voting so that's possible ) 2 thirds of the actual vote.

Ok, clearer now.

 

Not sure what percentage you would pick though, 50% sounds the fairest although I would apply it to actual, not eligible voters. Anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote doesn't deserve to complain about the result.

 

Trade unions in the UK can call a strike with just 40% of the union members vote and Corbyn thinks its unfair that 50% of eligible members have to take part in the vote.

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

How do our democratically elected representatives voting in a democratic process in our parliament represent a sad day for democracy? 

Quite simple the British electorate voted to leave the EU, not have one foot in and one foot out and knowing what you think of the UK, you are not going to say anything different are you. Many in parliament are simply trying to scupper brexit and I suspect you already know this, and are maybe in favour of this, so to conclude that is not, I repeat 'not' democracy in the majority of the electorate minds.

[Baerboxer]

4 hours ago, Grouse said:

Burke explains this far more eloquently than I can

 

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html

 

Rather old English but worth persevering with ?

 

Members of parliament are NOT there merely to present the wishes of a majority of their constituents. They are there to represent their constituents best interests and those of the country as a whole. A far more onerous task!

 

Something a great many modern day politicians seem to have forgotten! On all sides of the house.

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

Quite simple the British electorate voted to leave the EU, not have one foot in and one foot out and knowing what you think of the UK, you are not going to say anything different are you. Many in parliament are simply trying to scupper brexit and I suspect you already know this, and are maybe in favour of this, so to conclude that is not, I repeat 'not' democracy in the majority of the electorate minds.

 

Britain has a representative democracy. The unusual step of holding a referendum was a Tory/Cameron gamble to stop dissent in the Tory Party and undermine the growing, at that time, threat of UKIP. It backfired. After campaign of lies, a referendum with no rules except most votes win, and the revealing of a total lack of any sort of coherent plan of action, or indeed any kind of real risk analysis, and a complete failure by the opposition to mount anything but a half-hearted campaign, the politicians were shown up for what they were.

 

Now they have the chance to man-up and do the job they were elected to do. Which isn't to meekly follow party or party leader dictates and ideology.

 

Notice the how UKIP has all but vanished? People can, will, and do change their views. That's what happens in a democracy. 

 

Holding a poorly constructed referendum, winning by a small margin and then trying to pretend it's a one off, never to turned over, cast in stone, cannot be undone result isn't remotely democratic.

[the guest]

UK should have a second referendum, it is becoming quite clear the country would be far worse off, than in. 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Britain has a representative democracy. The unusual step of holding a referendum was a Tory/Cameron gamble to stop dissent in the Tory Party and undermine the growing, at that time, threat of UKIP. It backfired. After campaign of lies, a referendum with no rules except most votes win, and the revealing of a total lack of any sort of coherent plan of action, or indeed any kind of real risk analysis, and a complete failure by the opposition to mount anything but a half-hearted campaign, the politicians were shown up for what they were.

 

Now they have the chance to man-up and do the job they were elected to do. Which isn't to meekly follow party or party leader dictates and ideology.

 

Notice the how UKIP has all but vanished? People can, will, and do change their views. That's what happens in a democracy. 

 

Holding a poorly constructed referendum, winning by a small margin and then trying to pretend it's a one off, never to turned over, cast in stone, cannot be undone result isn't remotely democratic.

Time to trot out this again. 

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

This article was published in may 16, 2016. Didn't see or hear any objections from Brexiters when Farage said this. Is that because Farage wasn't a prominent leader of the Brexit movement? Or because the Mirror is an obscure rag?

[Orac]

Quite simple the British electorate voted to leave the EU, not have one foot in and one foot out and knowing what you think of the UK, you are not going to say anything different are you. Many in parliament are simply trying to scupper brexit and I suspect you already know this, and are maybe in favour of this, so to conclude that is not, I repeat 'not' democracy in the majority of the electorate minds.

I assume this is another of those Brexit dreams out of the window.

Brexiteers: We want to make our own laws again!
Parliament: *makes own law*
Brexiteers: This is not democracy.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[citybiker]

UK should have a second referendum, it is becoming quite clear the country would be far worse off, than in. 

Total Absurdity to consider a 2nd referendum just because the minority disagree with the result, the U.K. is not Eire just because Brussels disapproves of the result too.

All the doom & gloom of the U.K. is yet more project fear and so far proved not only inaccurate & also highlights and focuses on experts models and forecasts as questionable.

The HoC defeat is part of democracy, I don’t agree the way the Tory (reman element) done this however overall, that’s still democracy for you.

Not directed at you per se however some people really need to get a grip, time to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[vogie]

14 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

I assume this is another of those Brexit dreams out of the window.

Brexiteers: We want to make our own laws again!
Parliament: *makes own law*
Brexiteers: This is not democracy.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I wouldn't assume anything, more people voted out, not difficult, but some people go through life bleating and making excuses.

Remainers, oh no we've lost, sob sob sob, we want another referendum, we don't like what the majority want sob bleat moan. It's not over till the fat lady sings, you may end up drowning in your own bowl of gloat.

[beautifulthailand99]

10 minutes ago, citybiker said:

Total Absurdity to consider a 2nd referendum just because the minority disagree with the result, the U.K. is not Eire just because Brussels disapproves of the result too.

All the doom & gloom of the U.K. is yet more project fear and so far proved not only inaccurate & also highlights and focuses on experts models and forecasts as questionable.

The HoC defeat is part of democracy, I don’t agree the way the Tory (reman element) done this however overall, that’s still democracy for you.

Not directed at you per se however some people really need to get a grip, time to move on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blimey expert's models and forecasts - we should free up regulations and let butcher's have a go at brain surgery. What could possibly go wrong ?

[Khun Han]

5 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

Neither percentage has any real relevance because, as I shall never get tired of saying (until the Constitutional arrangements of the UK are changed):

 

A referendum has no Constitutional power or legal authority in the UK.  It is no more than an "opinion poll" upon which Parliament may, if it chooses, base its opinions and make its decisions.

 

Anyone who ever thought that it had anymore intrinsic power than an opinion poll in a newspaper was/is severely uninformed and deluded.

 

The truth is that nobody in power, government or Parliament is presently taking the results of the "Great Opinion Poll" into consideration when making their choices/decisions.

 

It's "History".

 

 

 

 

 

Did you even bother to read the post by Vogie directly above yours?

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Did you even bother to read the post by Vogie directly above yours?

Nigel Farage disagrees with Vogie.

[Khun Han]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nigel Farage disagrees with Vogie.

 

Nigel Farage has never been in government, and was not involved in the wording of the referendum.