[Politics] Brexit

[dingodan]

Not true.

The European Parliament (elected by EU citizens) and the Council of Ministers (representing national governments and attended by national ministers) amend the draft proposals and vote on whether these proposals should become EU law.

The Commission propose legislation and consists of 28 members, one from each member state.

Like I said, do let me know when I can vote to elect or remove the EU Commission won't you. Or when any of them stood for and won an election in the first place.

If the UK Parliament operated like the EU does, then it would work something like this:

Boris Johnsons Cabinet (the executive branch) are the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Oh wait, the Cabinet at least consists of elected MPs. We need to change that.

Appointees like Dominic Cummings are the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Keep defending it if you want, keep pretending it's perfectly fine, but the fact is people don't like it. They want their Democracy back. That's why people voted to leave.

 

[abc]

You talk about division the. Peddle your usual line. I don’t see much how debate about the rights and wrongs of a referendum decision, more about the narrative peddled to get the votes (simplest negotiation ever, £350m, Turkey entry, take back control, blah blah blah). Many will follow party lines? That is not how people are viewing the issue, it’s transcending party lines. A Parliament lost the confidence of most of the country? They are doing their duty, it’s not about getting things done as quickly as possible because many are bored of it.

Parking that, yes, I agree, respect has been lost. The way through it is take the deal back to the country, that deal or remain. Any other route will leave this country split for decades and will not lead to healing

To be fair, you are on the same page as the tone of my post. You agree with some of what I said and not with other parts ie a debate but without abuse. I will try and respond in the same way (If that all sounds a bit patronising I don't mean it to be!)

I have long supported a second referendum but Parliament had the chance to vote for one (or at least the first steps towards one) but voted against. I cant see how that will change and so that ship has sailed. The next opportunity was the call for a General Election. The opposition refused to demand one and so that ship sailed too. Yesterday was the opportunity for Parliament to move forward and that ship has sailed too.

The only 'solution' now is an immediate General Election and hope to goodness that we don't end up with another hung Parliament. I think maybe all sides of the Brexit argument will be OK with an election but I think a referendum now (prior to an election) would be horribly divisive. However it again rests with the opposition to agree to an election and despite everything and their own rhetoric, there are no signs that they will do so.

When I look it like that, I cant see how we will ever resolve this until an election is due under the fixed term time scale

 

[Guinness Boy]

MEPs don't make laws. The Commission do. Let me know when the Commission election is so I can vote to remove them.

Can't you just say, "Yes, the people who make the laws aren't elected, but I am Ok with that".

.

No, because it's WRONG. As [MENTION=17963]Hampster Gull[/MENTION] has pointed out we have representation in setting the agenda. MEPs, meanwhile, have the ability to amend or block European Council proposals on EU Law.

 

[BadFish]

To be fair, you are on the same page as the tone of my post. You agree with some of what I said and not with other parts ie a debate but without abuse. I will try and respond in the same way (If that all sounds a bit patronising I don't mean it to be!)

I have long supported a second referendum but Parliament had the chance to vote for one (or at least the first steps towards one) but voted against. I cant see how that will change and so that ship has sailed. The next opportunity was the call for a General Election. The opposition refused to demand one and so that ship sailed too. Yesterday was the opportunity for Parliament to move forward and that ship has sailed too.

The only 'solution' now is an immediate General Election and hope to goodness that we don't end up with another hung Parliament. I think maybe all sides of the Brexit argument will be OK with an election but I think a referendum now (prior to an election) would be horribly divisive. However it again rests with the opposition to agree to an election and despite everything and their own rhetoric, there are no signs that they will do so.

When I look it like that, I cant see how we will ever resolve this until an election is due under the fixed term time scale

You can't do that though, another vote is undemocratic.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

We have been fortunate to live in a democracy. Win or lose both sides have accepted the result, be it an election or a referendum.
The only reason this country has descended into this ugly abyss is because one side refused to accept it had lost the referendum. Democracy depends on the acceptance of defeat by the losing side. Instead right from 23/6/16 the losing side have attempted to thwart the result's implementation. Leave won despite all the big guns being lined up against it, even £9,000,000 of the taxpayers own money. Yet still the cries of Leave cheated, Leave lied, leavers are racists, leavers are thick; anything but accept that a majority of the people who voted did so because they wanted to leave The EU.
There was no need for compromise, just respect for democracy.

The referendum was advisory only, and proved to be corrupt in the High Court in February 2019, as admitted by the government's own QC James Eadie. If it was mandatory, it would have been nullifie.

Democracy wasn't and isn't a one off event. It changes with every vote taken as a democratic process.

 

[The Clamp]

No, because it's WRONG. As [MENTION=17963]Hampster Gull[/MENTION] has pointed out we have representation in setting the agenda. MEPs, meanwhile, have the ability to amend or block European Council proposals on EU Law.

It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. He feels strongly about it. That's what counts

 

[ManOfSussex]

That's a decent example to be fair.

Someone made a poster about immigration numbers.

All you see is a persons skin color.

Oh dear. So you're defending Farage, standing in front of a poster of refugees crossing from Bosnia into Slovenia to play on some people's subliminal fears about Muslims for the purposes of winning Leave votes because it make you feel uncomfortable? Am I right?

Although it didn't influence you (because you do seem so sweet and naive) you should try and accept and come round to the fact that it got knuckledraggers everywhere out to vote the same you did though. It's not my fault The EDL backed Leave and sing the name of the Prime Minister on the streets of London.................

 

[dingodan]

No, because it's WRONG. As [MENTION=17963]Hampster Gull[/MENTION] has pointed out we have representation in setting the agenda. MEPs, meanwhile, have the ability to amend or block European Council proposals on EU Law.

What do you mean "we have representation in setting the agenda"?

You mean because there is a UK Commissioner? Who never stood in an election and was never voted for by any of us?

Well at least we have someone looking out for the interests of the UK though, right?

"members [of the EU Commission] are bound by their oath of office to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole rather than their home state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

Having the ability to amend of block legislation is no subsitute for being able to propose legislation.

How would you feel if MP's could amend or block legislation, but the only people who could propose legislation would be people like Dominic Cummings?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Like I said, do let me know when I can vote to elect or remove the EU Commission won't you. Or when any of them stood for and won an election in the first place.

If the UK Parliament operated like the EU does, then it would work something like this.

Boris Johnsons Cabinet (the executive branch) are the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Oh wait, the Cabinet at least consists of elected MPs. We need to change that.

Appointees like Dominic Cummings are the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Keep defending it if you want, keep pretending it's perfectly fine, but the fact is people don't like it. They want their Democracy back. That's why people voted to leave.

Hilary Benn is not in the Cabinet, nor is Oliver Letwin, but both proposed legislation and have had it passed in the HOC.

 

[abc]

I think the basic problem is that 'Leave' and 'Remain' are diametrically opposite.

That means by their very definition that there isn't a compromise that isn't one or the other

Very true.

IF we do leave next week as the Gov claim we still will, then I will be incredibly sad because, aside from the economic concerns, I have always believed we should be, as a world, trying to get closer rather than further apart. That is the way, IMHO, to peace. But I will also be relieved as the economic damage of the continuous uncertainty and stalemate needs to be arrested. I also support the mantra that we need to start the process of 'healing'.

I suppose that's my personal version of compromise

 

[dingodan]

Hilary Benn is not in the Cabinet, nor is Oliver Letwin, but both proposed legislation and have had it passed in the HOC.

Yes, I know. That is the system I am defending.

I think you misunderstood my post. The HoC is what we want in terms of lawmaking.

The example in my post was how the HoC would work if it operated like the EU does.

 

[The Clamp]

Yes, I know. That is the system I am defending.

I think you misunderstood my post. The HoC is what we want in terms of lawmaking.

The example in my post was how the HoC would work if it operated like the EU does.

You don't know whether you're scratching your watch or winding your arse.

 

[ROKERITE]

Good post. I think we actually have to get away from the thought that we have to stick by a narrow referendum result from so long ago. In "Agile" theory there is the expression "pivot without guilt or mercy". It basically means that if a company tries something and finds it not working, ruthlessly change direction to something else and try that. That is the key to success in business these days, and it should be for the country.

I guess I am saying that I believe a second referendum would settle matters with both sides perhaps accepting the result better, especially if Leave won again. In Switzerland they often have repeat referenda amongst their many instances. Can we show some of their maturity?

This is the disingenuousness and hypocrisy that remainers have displayed for the last three and quarter years. "A narrow referendum result from so long ago"; only so long ago because the enemies of BREXIT prevented it being delivered sooner. We haven't left so haven't tried the freedom of a post-EU era. Leave properly and if in ten or fifteen years it isn't working apply to rejoin, except The Eu will probably have crumbled by then and if not no-one will want to be attached to it.
It wouldn't be a second referendum it would be a third. I'm old enough to have voted "yes" in 1975 and had to wait forty-one years for a chance to recant. There's no reason to believe remainers would accept another vote in favour of leave any more than they've accepted the 2016 one.
In The EU they often have repeat referendums till a cowed populace votes the way our masters in Brussels wish us to do. Let's show some of the Swiss maturity and join them outside The EU.

 

[RossyG]

Says a fool quoting something over TWENTY years old, back to school for you and don't mess with the BIG boys

So stuff that happened twenty years ago doesn’t count? Interesting...

Oh and I referred to it, by the way; I didn’t quote it. Schoolboy error...

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No, that's not correct.

The Commissioners are proposed by the Council of the European Union, on the basis of suggestions made by the national governments, and then appointed by the European Council after the approval of the European Parliament.

They can be "approved" (and not by us). What they can't be is chosen. Nor can they be removed.

We can go round and round like this. I am advocating something not all that remarkable. That lawmakers should be elected by the people who they will live under the laws they make. They should stand on a platform of what they propose to do, and the people should decide to elect them or not on that basis.

That's what we have in the UK. It's not what we have in the EU. That's why I would prefer us to leave the EU and be governed by those we elect.

Article 50 (which we triggered to start leaving) was written by a British member of the House of Lords, Lord Kerr. He is also one of the 11 judges in the Supreme Court who ruled against Johnson proroguing Parliament.

 

[clapham_gull]

That’s not true. For example the ERG voted down Mays leave deal three times.

As did the DUP , who voted for the amendment yesterday.

Hard Brexiteers / Tory fans simply cannot get round their head that what is happening on the opposition benches or outside Parliament is irrelevant.

In any case, enough Labour MPs would come across if Neo Liberals like Raab, Pritel and Mogg weren't planning a race to the bottom with workers rights and regulation. That's what it's all about - read the small print.. They in themselves would be irrelevant if successive Tory leaders didn't continue in shaving away at their numbers.

The Tories have painted themselves into a corner by alienating a sizable group of their own MPs and throwing their natural allies the DUP under a bus.

Most of which either voted for Mays deal or would vote for another that doesn't split the Union.

Brexiteers can blame everyone else if they like, but remain voters outside have absolutely no power over what is going on in Parliament. The handful who have brought court cases are simply upholding the law where the Tories seem quite happy to ignore it.

Whatever Farage said that they drooled over was also irrelevant. He isn't a Westminster MP. He is also the sworn enemy of Cummings.

The Tories are to blame, nobody else.

 

[Happy Exile]

Yet still the cries of Leave cheated, Leave lied, leavers are racists, leavers are thick; anything but accept that a majority of the people who voted did so because they wanted to leave The EU.
There was no need for compromise, just respect for democracy.

Well Leave did lie and did cheat that's a matter of fact, not opinion, but all that aside there is no disrespect for democracy, if anything its the total opposite. And compromise is precisely what is needed because Leave means so many different things to so many different people. Surely you can see that?

My mate who voted Leave did so because he believed the many official Leave campaigners saying we'd stay in the single market. Who is respecting his democratic vote given in good faith? He's horrified he was so conned by Hannan, Johnson and the rest and would never support the Leave they now want.

Farage said he wanted a Norway type deal and he and lots of others don't see Johnson's deal as the "real Brexit" they voted for. Who is respecting their expression of democracy, also given in good faith?

Rees-Mogg wants no deal, while Gove explicitly says he campaigned on the basis that'd never happen. Who is respecting each of their different expressions of democracy? Certainly not anyone negotiating with the EU.

It's not hard to see that Leave was so ill defined it meant at least 8 different things to people who voted for it. Literally no-one will be happy with Johnson's deal. It satisfies almost none of the promises made in the campaign.

The only way to respect democracy is obviously to compromise and be adults about it. That's what Parliament is trying to achieve. Some MPs anyway.

Similarly the only sensible thing is to have a 2nd referendum with Leave clearly defined so people - whether Farage, Rees-Mogg, Gove, Corbyn or my very anti-EU mate all have a chance of actually getting what Leave means to them. At the moment none of them stand any chance of getting what they thought they were voting for.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

This is the disingenuousness and hypocrisy that remainers have displayed for the last three and quarter years. "A narrow referendum result from so long ago"; only so long ago because the enemies of BREXIT prevented it being delivered sooner. We haven't left so haven't tried the freedom of a post-EU era. Leave properly and if in ten or fifteen years it isn't working apply to rejoin, except The Eu will probably have crumbled by then and if not no-one will want to be attached to it.
It wouldn't be a second referendum it would be a third. I'm old enough to have voted "yes" in 1975 and had to wait forty-one years for a chance to recant. There's no reason to believe remainers would accept another vote in favour of leave any more than they've accepted the 2016 one.
In The EU they often have repeat referendums till a cowed populace votes the way our masters in Brussels wish us to do. Let's show some of the Swiss maturity and join them outside The EU.

The enemies of Brexit prevented it being delivered sooner? You mean like Boris Johnson & JRM who voted against Theresa May's deal more than once because it wasn't Brexicity enough for them.
Theresa May threw away her majority in the HOC with an election, but even bribing the DUP wasn't enough to get her deal done due to the ERG, who are all LEAVERS.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yes, I know. That is the system I am defending.

I think you misunderstood my post. The HoC is what we want in terms of lawmaking.

The example in my post was how the HoC would work if it operated like the EU does.

I didn't misunderstand your post.

 

[dingodan]

I didn't misunderstand your post.

Yes you did. Why would you correct me by telling me that the Cabinet are not the only ones would can propose legislation?

Read my post again. Jesus, you can't even bring yourself to say, "oh yeah, sorry my mistake". Bloody hell.

Like I said, do let me know when I can vote to elect or remove the EU Commission won't you. Or when any of them stood for and won an election in the first place.

If the UK Parliament operated like the EU does, then it would work something like this:

[How it would work:]*Boris Johnsons Cabinet (the executive branch) are [would be] the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Oh wait, the Cabinet at least consists of elected MPs. We need to change that.

[How it would work (more accurate version):]Appointees like Dominic Cummings are [would be] the only people in the HoC allowed to propose legislation. Others can vote it up or down, but they cannot propose anything themselves.

Keep defending it if you want, keep pretending it's perfectly fine, but the fact is people don't like it. They want their Democracy back. That's why people voted to leave.

Hilary Benn is not in the Cabinet, nor is Oliver Letwin, but both proposed legislation and have had it passed in the HOC.

Yes, I know. That is the system I am defending.

I think you misunderstood my post. The HoC is what we want in terms of lawmaking.

The example in my post was how the HoC would work if it operated like the EU does*.

I didn't misunderstand your post.

Yes you did.