Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

UK Politics Hamsterwheel MkII

Old 1st Oct 2019, 08:43
  #10761 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,645
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
Is the Isle of Man part of the UK ?
No IoM is not part of the United Kingdom, it is a Crown Dependency. It's citizens are British and it is not a member of the EU or EEA. Confused?

My reference to the Isle of Man and internment references the interment of German citizens and others labelled Nazi sympathisers that began in 1939. It's little known about, but has been covered on TV features a few times in UK over the past few years.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 08:49
  #10762 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,645
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator View Post
Either 17.4 million didn't anticipate it as significant or accepted the short period, or just didn't think. However having voted it became incumbent on the Government to take action. Either way you're wrong and go to the EU and negotiate or honour the implied promise and get out. Yet call me Dave bottled out and did neither. The Tories as a body then stuffed up for 3 years before . . . but we know the rest.
Is it incumbent upon a Parliamentary system to blindly accept and enact the result of a referendum? I believe that even in Switzerland, where referenda are a feature of political life, when a result doesn't go the "right way" for the good of the country, the government procrastinates and has disregarded results in the past.

It's purely rhetorical question, since we are, as you say, where we are, for the reasons you state.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 08:59
  #10763 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
When Parliamentarians have said so convincingly that they will accept and enact the results of a referendum, that would be what the electorate would expect Parliament to do.

But does anyone believe what any politicians say any more? I'll give an example: "We want a General Election"; then when given the opportunity (twice) "Not now".
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:14
  #10764 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,645
Originally Posted by NoelEvans View Post
When Parliamentarians have said so convincingly that they will accept and enact the results of a referendum, that would be what the electorate would expect Parliament to do.

But does anyone believe what any politicians say any more? I'll give an example: "We want a General Election"; then when given the opportunity (twice) "Not now".
The reason, as you know full well, why the opposition parties have refused to have a no confidence vote at present is that they see (quite rightly in my opinion) thwarting a no deal exit from the EU on 31st October has to take precedence over bringing the government down.

What I fail to understand in all this is why Jo Swinson and her LibDem party can't accept a time limited, caretaker government lead by Corbyn to stop the no deal scenario on 31st October. In doing so she could very easily facilitate the no deal exit that the ERG wants to force on Johnson. If that happened just watch the LibDems support hemorrhage.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:17
  #10765 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by ATNotts View Post
Is it incumbent upon a Parliamentary system to blindly accept and enact the result of a referendum?
It all depends on what was said by the Parliament before the referendum : was it to be legally binding or consultative ?
If only the Government promised, then...

Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:27
  #10766 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 72
Posts: 705
I seem to remember it was stated quite clearly in the referendum terms that it was to be "advisory".
KelvinD is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:34
  #10767 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England
Posts: 180
https://policyexchange.org.uk/public...tion-judgment/

As I predicted, the unprecedented constitutional change brought about by The Supreme Court decision hasn't gone unnoticed in academic legal circles.
akindofmagic is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:35
  #10768 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,175
Noel Evans,

And Parliament has said convincingly, SO convincingly that is has been enshrined in Law, that they do not want the country to crash out of the EU with a catastrophic No Deal.

And the Labour Party DO want a General Election, but not until they can guarantee that the Prime Minister will not alter the date to after October 31st, and does anyone believe what THAT politician says any more?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:39
  #10769 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by Fly Aiprt View Post
It all depends on what was said by the Parliament before the referendum : was it to be legally binding or consultative ?
If only the Government promised, then...
​​​​​​​As it happens, I am led to believe that generally referendums are advisory legally. As was the one in 2016. Facts can't change.

Maybe you could provide any evidence that any MP ever mentioned the referendum was advisory? Try even those like Blair, Major, Adonis, Mandelson.
In fact I can't recall any speech, report, or Twitter from any MP using the advisory word in public.
Now, I have stated that I haven't heard, but maybe someone could show it has been discussed openly in public.

The reason is blindingly obvious. No MP is stupid enough to say, 'we gave you a vote. We said we would enact and honour it'. But because we think you are, ignorant racists, and you did not give us the answer we wanted, your vote doesn't matter. It is a wonderful way of being elected by your constituents if you stood in front of them and spoke like this. Have a look at the constituency map. See how many voted leave.

The Nip is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:48
  #10770 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,175
The Nip,

No referendum is binding in UK law or the Parliamentary rules and procedures, they are actually called out as advisory. They are not mentioned in Erskin May.

Having said that, the Government of the day CHOSE to announce that they would stand by the results, and Parliament voted in favour of that. The Prime Minister at the time announced that he would be bound by the decision and would implement it (instead he ran away). There was a subsequent General Election in which all parties with the exception of the SNP stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the decision of the referendum.

They just never said they would do it via a NO Deal exit.

And that too is now law.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:48
  #10771 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 63
Posts: 3
Did my ears deceive me, or did Boris Johnson threaten the EU on Radio 4 this morning? I heard words to the effect that if the UK was not out of the EU on the 31st of October then UK MEPs would frustrate and paralyse the EU parliament by using their veto powers at every opportunity from the 1st of November. This would be no laughing matter for the EU given the size of the UK Brexit Party and Conservative Party bloc of MEPs. It could certainly derail EU parliamentary business until Brexit was completed and the UK MEPs dismissed.
G0ULI is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 09:48
  #10772 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,645
As it happens, I am led to believe that generally referendums are advisory legally. As was the one in 2016. Facts can't change.
That was my understanding. Therefore Cameron mislead the public in not saying that the result would be (legally) only advisory, and subsequently May and now Johnson have made a conscious that taking a wrecking ball to the UK economy, and the peoples well being (whether that be for 6 weeks, 6 months or 6 years) is a sensible decision. I should point out here that I'm not considering that in context of leaving in an orderly manner with an agreement with the EU, but if we were to walk out, sans agreement on 31st October.

Governments are elected to govern, for the benefit of the people. I don't believe that the current regime's policy on Brexit is in any way fulfilling that requirement.
ATNotts is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 10:03
  #10773 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,175
Originally Posted by G0ULI View Post
If the government had left the EU three years ago within a few weeks of the referendum, there wouldn't have been all the current anguish and discontent. The excuse then was that time was needed to prepare for Brexit. More than three years have elapsed and there is still another month to go. That is ample time for any and all preparations to have been made, stockpiles established and new supply routes organised.

The insistance on doing some sort of deal prior to leaving was based on some ideal of maintaining borderless trade with the EU despite Brexit. The EU made it clear from the beginning that this was never going to be a possibility. Negotiations cannot be made with individual member states while they are still part of the EU. This is to prevent other nations joining the EU briefly, establishing preferential trade deals, and then leaving the EU while retaining those trade advantages.

The UK leaves the EU on the 31st of October and perhaps faces a slightly bleak Christmas with shortages of fresh salad and strawberries, or we remain and face what will amount to a civil war with parliament pitting their will against the result of a democratic vote.

Christmas will be cancelled.
G0ULI,

A typical non caring response from those who will not be affected! Glossing over the impact and making light of the pain to be suffered by those who can least resist it.

IF the UK had left the EU three years ago without an exit deal or withdrawal agreement then, by now, we would have seen a massive rise in unemployment as those international countries affected by tariffs withdrew from their UK operations, UK farming would be devastated, hit by a deliberately inflicted double whammy of up to 48% tariffs on their exports and a flood of cheap non regulated imports taking their UK market. Financial services would have retrenched following the loss of passporting rights and GDP would have reduced significantly, leading to a severe loss of Govt revenue just as it had to pay out a large increase in welfare to the unemployed.

And with no EU freedom of movement just who do you imagine is going to pick your UK strawberries?
pr00ne is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 10:22
  #10774 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 239
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
The Nip,

No referendum is binding in UK law or the Parliamentary rules and procedures, they are actually called out as advisory. They are not mentioned in Erskin May.

Having said that, the Government of the day CHOSE to announce that they would stand by the results, and Parliament voted in favour of that. The Prime Minister at the time announced that he would be bound by the decision and would implement it (instead he ran away). There was a subsequent General Election in which all parties with the exception of the SNP stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the decision of the referendum.

They just never said they would do it via a NO Deal exit.

And that too is now law.
I would agree with that.

Now so things are clear to everyone : the moment you leave, the UK is instantly out of the EU, agreement or not.
What some people seem to not get right is, that doesn't in any manner mean that this coming and going to and from Brussels will end.

On the contrary, this is when things will really get going. Every single trade or regulatory agreement will require days, weeks and months of negotiations.
Considering the negociating abilities demonstrated by your present HM Governement for just one withdrawal agreement, it might take some time until you're out of the wood.
Fly Aiprt is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 10:32
  #10775 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: God's Country
Posts: 113
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
The Nip,

No referendum is binding in UK law or the Parliamentary rules and procedures, they are actually called out as advisory. They are not mentioned in Erskin May.

Having said that, the Government of the day CHOSE to announce that they would stand by the results, and Parliament voted in favour of that. The Prime Minister at the time announced that he would be bound by the decision and would implement it (instead he ran away). There was a subsequent General Election in which all parties with the exception of the SNP stood on a manifesto commitment to implement the decision of the referendum.

They just never said they would do it via a NO Deal exit.

And that too is now law.
Correct. By overwhelmingly voting to enact A50, the MPs did indeed ensure that the referendum became law, and also No deal became the default position in the event a deal was not agreed.

We are where we are.
The Nip is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 10:49
  #10776 (permalink)  
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 76
Posts: 16,606
pr00ne, that is one scenario, a scenario that befitted Project Fear but it is only a scendusagree However I would not disagree that it might still happen.

ATNotts,
What I fail to understand in all this is why Jo Swinson and her LibDem party can't accept a time limited, caretaker government lead by Corbyn to stop the no deal scenario on 31st October.
Maybe it is a question of trust. Is there such a thing as a time limited Government? Once someone is Prime Minister the means of unseating them are proscribed. All that the supporting parties could do is cease their support making a minority Government difficult.
Pontius Navigator is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 11:05
  #10777 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,226
PN and AT Notts - the reason behind Jo Swinson's attitude was given, by her, this morning, on the .'Today' programme - she has learned the most basic lesson of Politics - "Learn to Count"! While Corbyn's position as Leader of the Opposition should entitle him to 'first dibs' at the ';caretaker PM', to nominate him would, instantly, lose the support of the dissident Tories AND a large number of Labour MPs also. Unless Corbyn is removed from the equation, the hopes of a majority coalescing seem pretty remote. Unfair, perhaps, but fairness in politics is only ever a pipe-dream!
Cornish Jack is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 11:19
  #10778 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 18
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
...

IF the UK had left the EU three years ago without an exit deal or withdrawal agreement then, by now, we would have seen a massive rise in unemployment as those international countries affected by tariffs withdrew from their UK operations, UK farming would be devastated, hit by a deliberately inflicted double whammy of up to 48% tariffs on their exports and a flood of cheap non regulated imports taking their UK market. Financial services would have retrenched following the loss of passporting rights and GDP would have reduced significantly, leading to a severe loss of Govt revenue just as it had to pay out a large increase in welfare to the unemployed.

...
One can make up any 'would have' situations one likes in hindsight.

Let's try another one:

After being freed from EU restraints and the financial drain of EU membership the British economy would have increased global trade and would have moved up to being the world's third biggest economy. London would have strengthened its position as the world's leading financial city.

Glass half empty vs glass half full. (Eeyore vs Tigger?) Or maybe reality is neither but a more boring, but still pleasant, position somewhere in between.

One thing is certain: three years of kicking the can down the road and the uncertainty that it brings has done no-one anywhere any favours. Especially all the politicians involved -- on all sides.
NoelEvans is offline  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 11:22
  #10779 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Currently within the EU
Posts: 318
Pontius I think you meant prescribed.
Sallyann1234 is online now  
Old 1st Oct 2019, 11:28
  #10780 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 1,645
Originally Posted by Cornish Jack View Post
PN and AT Notts - the reason behind Jo Swinson's attitude was given, by her, this morning, on the .'Today' programme - she has learned the most basic lesson of Politics - "Learn to Count"! While Corbyn's position as Leader of the Opposition should entitle him to 'first dibs' at the ';caretaker PM', to nominate him would, instantly, lose the support of the dissident Tories AND a large number of Labour MPs also. Unless Corbyn is removed from the equation, the hopes of a majority coalescing seem pretty remote. Unfair, perhaps, but fairness in politics is only ever a pipe-dream!
If Corbyn's hands are tied by the LibDems, ex-Tories and the rest, to the extent where he understands, in no uncertain terms, that if he deviates from his mandate as caretaker PM, he will wind up losing the confidence of the house and elections will follow then the risk is virtually non existent. There's no doubt he'd lose as there aren't enough left wing loonies in parliament to win.

When confronted with a very stark choice, somewhere toward the middle of October MPs will likely have to decide which is the lesser of the two (pretty big) evils - no deal Brexit or Corbyn.
ATNotts is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.