UK: The Brexit ball is rolling

[webfact]

UK: The Brexit ball is rolling

 

 

LONDON: -- Theresa May’s government on Thursday presented to parliament draft legislation to enable Britain to begin its divorce from the European Union.

 

The prime minister hopes the bill, to be initially debated next week, will clear the lower and upper houses by the end of March. That is her self-imposed deadline to invoke Article 50 – the exit clause of the bloc’s Lisbon Treaty.

 

A UK Supreme Court ruling on Tuesday forced Mrs May to seek parliament’s approval, rejecting the government’s argument that it could do so unilaterally.

 

“The British people have made the decision to leave the EU and this government is determined to get on with the job of delivering it,” Brexit Minister David Davis said in a statement.

 

“I trust that parliament, which backed the referendum by six to one, will respect the decision taken by the British people and pass the legislation quickly.”

 

The bill will now be debated for two days next week, on Jan. 31 and Feb. 1, the government said.

 

It is then expected to progress to a further debate stage, lasting three days from Feb. 6 to Feb. 8.

 

Two years of complex negotiations with Brussels will follow the triggering of Article 50, focussing on the terms of Britain’s exit and its new trading arrangements.

 

On Wednesday, May bowed to pressure and agreed to detail her plans for Brexit in a White Paper policy document.

 

Political foes, led by the main opposition Labour Party, are increasingly alarmed by her push for a clean break with the world’s largest trading bloc – setting a course for a so-called ‘hard Brexit’.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2017-01-27

[jpinx]

Good job with that quick bill.  Let's see if any MP's want to thwart the will of the people

[Nurseynutcase]

No doubt the Bremoaners will try!!!!

 

It should really have happened on june24th 2016.

 

Let us hope that everything goes smoothly and we do make a clean break from that money sucking monster the EU

[Enoon]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

Good job with that quick bill.  Let's see if any MP's want to thwart the will of the people

 

The only time that the UK political system has any duty or legal obligation to act upon the "will of the people" is during a General Election.

 

That result is binding.  Everything else is their "game".

 

The "Great Opinion Poll" that you people seem to think so forceful was nothing more than that.......an opinion poll.

 

Parliament will treat its results in the same way that it would treat any other opinion poll.  They will weigh up the pros and cons, and it will be one of the factors which influence their actions.

 

Hint: As far as they are concerned the result was close enough to 50/50 to be regarded as such. 

 

Opinion: So far the government has failed twice, in the High Court and at the Supreme Court.  It looks  likely that Parliamentary procedure, in one form or another, will drag this beyond Ms Mays self-declared deadline of March.  That will be three in a row.

 

Note: A defeat on a major item of legislation, which this is, is by precedent taken as a "vote of no confidence" and compels a General Election.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Enoon

[Stupooey]

Sovereignty in the UK rests with Parliament. MPs are elected by the people to make decisions on their behalf on the basis of (hopefully) their greater knowledge and experience. Rule by referendum is totally impracticable, which is why referenda can only be used in an advisory capacity. MPs should be given a free vote on the Brexit issue, and if they choose not to follow "the will of the people" then the people should defer to UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, there is a very recent precedent, where the US Electoral College failed to follow "the will of the people" in ratifying the election of Donald Trump, even though he had been soundly defeated in the popular vote.

[thai3]

Rubbish Trump won the popular vote as well discounting the illegals and cheats

[ResandePohm]

2 hours ago, thai3 said:

Rubbish Trump won the popular vote as well discounting the illegals and cheats

Some people believe anything

[Baerboxer]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

Good job with that quick bill.  Let's see if any MP's want to thwart the will of the people

 

They will be in a funny position. Many MPs come from constituencies that overwhelmingly voted to remain.

 

So whose will should they seek not to thwart?

[Baerboxer]

2 hours ago, Stupooey said:

Sovereignty in the UK rests with Parliament. MPs are elected by the people to make decisions on their behalf on the basis of (hopefully) their greater knowledge and experience. Rule by referendum is totally impracticable, which is why referenda can only be used in an advisory capacity. MPs should be given a free vote on the Brexit issue, and if they choose not to follow "the will of the people" then the people should defer to UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, there is a very recent precedent, where the US Electoral College failed to follow "the will of the people" in ratifying the election of Donald Trump, even though he had been soundly defeated in the popular vote.

 

British MPs are elected to represent their constituents. Yes, as a representative democracy they do make decisions, sometimes unpopular ones. But they should also be fully aware of the views held within their constituencies on such an important matter. The legislation that created the referendum specifically refers to it as advisory. 

The party leaders want, as often the case, to instruct how they should vote. They must show their spine and vote in accordance with what they believe to best for the country, not what leaders want to suit their own agendas.

 

We will see how the British democracy has stood the test of time.

[jpinx]

14 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

They will be in a funny position. Many MPs come from constituencies that overwhelmingly voted to remain.

 

So whose will should they seek not to thwart?

haha!!  :)  I like that idea -- MP's are elected to thwart their constituents, not represent them :)

 

It would appear that the action about revocation of Art50 is aimed at the ECJ for a final answer, which will be interesting.  A lot of this is going to come down to timing.  Which happens first?  Parliament's vote on Art50, or ECJ saying it is/isn't revocable.  ?

 

 

[DoctorB]

2 hours ago, Stupooey said:

Sovereignty in the UK rests with Parliament. MPs are elected by the people to make decisions on their behalf on the basis of (hopefully) their greater knowledge and experience. Rule by referendum is totally impracticable, which is why referenda can only be used in an advisory capacity. MPs should be given a free vote on the Brexit issue, and if they choose not to follow "the will of the people" then the people should defer to UK Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, there is a very recent precedent, where the US Electoral College failed to follow "the will of the people" in ratifying the election of Donald Trump, even though he had been soundly defeated in the popular vote.

 

I should be careful what you wish for on this one.

If you re-analyse the referendum vote by constituency, on a first-past-the-post basis as per a general election, though with slightly different voting area boundaries, you will see that 'Leave' won by an overwhelming majority; 230 to 129. For this reason sitting MPs are desperate to avoid a general election, since a large majority of them do not represent the wishes of their constituents.

In the event of an election 2 things might happen that terrify them. Firstly, local party selection committees may decide to de-select sitting MPs and select a candidate that does represent local feeling regarding leave or remain, or voters may change party alliegance; possibly to UKIP. And the last thing any of the sitting parties want is a substantial bloc of UKIP MPs at Westminster. A general election on this issue could just possibly lead to a seismic shift in British politics. Consider this, Clegg and Milliband are both leading lights in the effort to defeat Brexit, yet their constituency areas, Sheffield and Doncaster respectively, voted strongly for 'Leave'. So, why should their constituents vote for them again?

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, DoctorB said:

 

I should be careful what you wish for on this one.

If you re-analyse the referendum vote by constituency, on a first-past-the-post basis as per a general election, though with slightly different voting area boundaries, you will see that 'Leave' won by an overwhelming majority; 230 to 129. For this reason sitting MPs are desperate to avoid a general election, since a large majority of them do not represent the wishes of their constituents.

In the event of an election 2 things might happen that terrify them. Firstly, local party selection committees may decide to de-select sitting MPs and select a candidate that does represent local feeling regarding leave or remain, or voters may change party alliegance; possibly to UKIP. And the last thing any of the sitting parties want is a substantial bloc of UKIP MPs at Westminster. A general election on this issue could just possibly lead to a seismic shift in British politics. Consider this, Clegg and Milliband are both leading lights in the effort to defeat Brexit, yet their constituency areas, Sheffield and Doncaster respectively, voted strongly for 'Leave'. So, why should their constituents vote for them again?

Fascinating -- Can you put up some links or a bit more detail how that calculation was done, and who by?  This has long been suspected, but nobody has yet produced a reasonable proof.

[dunroaming]

As I have said over and over, I don't think that this will halt or slow down Brexit.  It is simply allowing the people who represent us to review and rubber stamp the negotiation targets.  If there was a second referendum and we voted to remain, I doubt that the EU would want us back at all.  Anyway it will not happen.

 

The sad thing at the moment is that May has to go (on her knees) to Trump and plead for a trade deal when in real terms it won't mean anything.  By the time we can actually negotiate one will be a minimum of two years and then it will probably take the same amount of time to implicate it and by then Trump will be gone.  Much better to simply tell Trump to stuff it and bide our time until there is a proper POTUS in place.

[Expattaff1308]

2 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

British MPs are elected to represent their constituents. Yes, as a representative democracy they do make decisions, sometimes unpopular ones. But they should also be fully aware of the views held within their constituencies on such an important matter. The legislation that created the referendum specifically refers to it as advisory. 

The party leaders want, as often the case, to instruct how they should vote. They must show their spine and vote in accordance with what they believe to best for the country, not what leaders want to suit their own agendas.

 

We will see how the British democracy has stood the test of time.

MPs voted in favor 6-1 to hold and uphold the result of a referendum, to do anything else would be undemocratic and against the will of the people.

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, Expattaff1308 said:

MPs voted in favor 6-1 to hold and uphold the result of a referendum, to do anything else would be undemocratic and against the will of the people.

That is true and they will (at least the vast majority of them) continue to back brexit.  However if there was a new referendum today I think you would find it would swing the other way by some number.  That won't and shouldn't happen now and people will have to live with the consequences.

[DoctorB]

3 hours ago, jpinx said:

Fascinating -- Can you put up some links or a bit more detail how that calculation was done, and who by?  This has long been suspected, but nobody has yet produced a reasonable proof.

 

Try these links below. My figures represented a simple count of the voting areas for the referendum where there was a degree of amalgamation of parliamentary constituencies. The links below involve a far more sophisticated statistical breakdown.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.rkg7fctlh

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisapplegate/why-a-pro-eu-party-could-be-screwed-in-the-next-election?utm_term=.apoEwD73j#.otQbAGOgz

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by DoctorB
correction of duplicae entry

[Khun Han]

8 hours ago, jpinx said:

Good job with that quick bill.  Let's see if any MP's want to thwart the will of the people

 

Some of the blairite soundbyte generation yuppie rabble have already come out against it.

[dunroaming]

5 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Some of the blairite soundbyte generation yuppie rabble have already come out against it.

I love the need to label people. "Blairite", "soundbite generation","yuppie".  Then of course we have "loonie lefties", "remoaners" and just for balance "rightwing nutjobs".

 

Somehow it is comforting to be able to label people and certainly saves on descriptions.

[jpinx]

For all those who are unhappy with the referendum result margin...

 

The EU referendum: how did Westminster constituencies vote?

: 421 out of 574 English and Welsh Westminster constituencies probably voted to Leave.

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.p9k7pcx1j

 

A political party aiming to fight a general election on an anti-Brexit platform could lose by as many as 150 seats, analysis suggests.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/

 

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/965897-uk-the-brexit-ball-is-rolling/?do=findComment&comment=11564727

 

[KBsinter]

20 hours ago, DoctorB said:

 

Try these links below. My figures represented a simple count of the voting areas for the referendum where there was a degree of amalgamation of parliamentary constituencies. The links below involve a far more sophisticated statistical breakdown.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/

https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.rkg7fctlh

https://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisapplegate/why-a-pro-eu-party-could-be-screwed-in-the-next-election?utm_term=.apoEwD73j#.otQbAGOgz

 

 

Very good reading, heartening to a point, good links, good post,well done...... 

[Orac]

For all those who are unhappy with the referendum result margin...
 
The EU referendum: how did Westminster constituencies vote?
: 421 out of 574 English and Welsh Westminster constituencies probably voted to Leave.
https://medium.com/@chrishanretty/the-eu-referendum-how-did-westminster-constituencies-vote-283c85cd20e1#.p9k7pcx1j
 
A political party aiming to fight a general election on an anti-Brexit platform could lose by as many as 150 seats, analysis suggests.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/anti-brexit-parties-would-win-150-fewer-seats-than-pro-leave-par/
 
http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/965897-uk-the-brexit-ball-is-rolling/?do=findComment&comment=11564727
 

You are basing your predictions on it being a single issue election (possibly true) with two clear choices (leave or remain) which would definitely not be the case.

Should two main parties advocate a pro-brexit campaign they would split the vote, particularly should they offer alternates between a 'hard' or a 'soft' brexit.

If the Lib Dems, who I am not a fan of, stand as the only main party offering a remain option they could take a substantial number of votes.

[jpinx]

11 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

You are basing your predictions on it being a single issue election (possibly true) with two clear choices (leave or remain) which would definitely not be the case.

Should two main parties advocate a pro-brexit campaign they would split the vote, particularly should they offer alternates between a 'hard' or a 'soft' brexit.

If the Lib Dems, who I am not a fan of, stand as the only main party offering a remain option they could take a substantial number of votes.
 

Not *my* predicitons!  I merely highlighted references I got earlier.  No need to analyse the analysis, it's just a simple mathematical calculation.  There were many things that could have been done better, but the government was so cocky about winning that they just "went for it".  When it blew up in their face the PM ran away and left westminster in a shambles.  Truly a disgraceful performance. Fortunately we now seem to have someone in charge who really has got the ball rolling.  Democracy has a habit of allowing the majority to get what they want, with some safeguards for the minorities perhaps, but the direction is clear.  Look at USA now, supposedly the greatest democracy on earth, but with orders being signed left, right and centre,  putting down minorities.  Be glad that UK has a more temperate style of government, but don't deny the wishes of the majority of voters.

Edited January 28, 2017 by jpinx

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.  

[Laughing Gravy]

On ‎1‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 4:57 PM, dunroaming said:

The sad thing at the moment is that May has to go (on her knees) to Trump and plead for a trade deal when in real terms it won't mean anything.  By the time we can actually negotiate one will be a minimum of two years and then it will probably take the same amount of time to implicate it and by then Trump will be gone.  Much better to simply tell Trump to stuff it and bide our time until there is a proper POTUS in place

Nothing sad about wanting to trade with one of the biggest and most important countries on the planet. Forget whether you like or dislike Trump. He will be president for at least 4 years. What is sad is that members of the EU have the audacity to tell the UK that you can't do trade deals until we leave. <deleted> do these people think they are. Don't forget Trump was democratically elected, so the people voted for him. It is irrelevant if we like him or not.

I keep hearing this line from remainers on how trade will take two years or longer. Says who? Just because the EU have demanded it take two years for us to leave. Well TM and the UK government can just as easily show them the middle finger and I hope they do.