Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

Call me old fashioned but I like leaders to lead. To have vision. To know what is best and make it happen. Are there any greater leaders who led using focus groups?

All good leaders lead within the realm of what the public want. Those that don't are dictators.

No doubt that is exactly what May is doing. The great sham is that she is not representing their will, the will of the masses, but mainly a tiny elite of Telegraph reading toffs who are nostalgic for a Britain of colonial times. A true leader would discern the true will of the people, and deliver what is right for the country.

The very clear will of the people has been shown in the most empirical manner possible. It was the largest turnout this country has seen for a vote

 

[milo]

The very clear will of the people has been shown in the most empirical manner possible. It was the largest turnout this country has seen for a vote

There is undoubtedly a mandate for leaving but there is no mandate for what follows. It cannot be right that the executive can set that without reference to parliament.

 

[scaramanga]

There is undoubtedly a mandate for leaving but there is no mandate for what follows. It cannot be right that the executive can set that without reference to parliament.

I think there is if parliament uses the opportunity forpolitical point scoring or to essentially filibuster the will of the people away.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I think there is if parliament uses the opportunity forpolitical point scoring or to essentially filibuster the will of the people away.

So far the Judges have ruled that the law lies with giving parliament the ultimate say so. Do you think their interpretation of the Law was incorrect? They were pretty emphatic in summary.

 

[Baleforce]

the mandate is to cut the cloth, it doesn't provide the dimensions

 

[SpurMeUp]

All good leaders lead within the realm of what the public want. Those that don't are dictators.


The very clear will of the people has been shown in the most empirical manner possible. It was the largest turnout this country has seen for a vote

The public don't always know what they want. Or say voted for brexit as a anti-immigration vote. Or as a protest vote because the NHS is underfunded etc. It is impossible for anyone to have voted for literal "brexit" because to this day no knows what that will be.

Take the Sunderland Nissan car factory workers. None of them voted to lose their job. Many upset that the implications were not clear: that tariffs potentially weaken Nissans ability to produce cars in the U.K.

So interesting question is how much should leaders lead, interpret will, or follow the masses who often don't fully understand details of economics, geopolitics etc?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[scaramanga]

So far the Judges have ruled that the law lies with giving parliament the ultimate say so. Do you think their interpretation of the Law was incorrect? They were pretty emphatic in summary.

I think that they are correct in theory - we have a parliamentary system and Parliament should be making decisions wherever possible.

The issue here is in the practice. We all know that Parliament will not decide/agree on any particular form of Brexit. Labour, as they currently stand, are no more than an anti-Tory protest party - same goes for the SNP. The Lib Dems won't go for any kind of brexit at all, and the Conservatives are split down the middle.

So if we can't reach any decision (and I think it's a very safe assumption that we won't), the result will be to keep the status quo. Whilst some are able to argue (incorrectly IMO) that no particular type of Brexit was voted for and therefore cannot be defined, the one thing we absolutely know the majority voted against was the status quo.

So the only solution I can see is that we give parliament a limited time to come to a decision after which it is in the hands of the PM because the least democratic result of all is to keep the status quo.

 

[Gutter Boy]

There is undoubtedly a mandate for leaving but there is no mandate for what follows. It cannot be right that the executive can set that without reference to parliament.

That's why parliament should vote on new relations with the world. But not the process of fulfilling the referendum result of first liberating the country.

 

[thfcsteff]

I think that they are correct in theory - we have a parliamentary system and Parliament should be making decisions wherever possible.

The issue here is in the practice. We all know that Parliament will not decide/agree on any particular form of Brexit. Labour, as they currently stand, are no more than an anti-Tory protest party - same goes for the SNP. The Lib Dems won't go for any kind of brexit at all, and the Conservatives are split down the middle.

So if we can't reach any decision (and I think it's a very safe assumption that we won't), the result will be to keep the status quo. Whilst some are able to argue (incorrectly IMO) that no particular type of Brexit was voted for and therefore cannot be defined, the one thing we absolutely know the majority voted against was the status quo.

So the only solution I can see is that we give parliament a limited time to come to a decision after which it is in the hands of the PM because the least democratic result of all is to keep the status quo.

I thought Brexit was a lemming move, despite the fact the EU is in need of reform, I personally do not think Brexit was the way to try and force it/that England would be better off out of it altogether.

However I agree with you (I think we agree?)...

Whatever anyone thinks of Brexit, if a nation opens up a referendum possibility, that referendum is delivered and a result achieved, wouldn't going against it put us in line with a multitude of other nations whose affairs we consider to be weird and dodgy? Put simply, May has a requirement to fully execute the will of the people as voted for in this referendum. Right? Even if some of us think it is (in fact) 'wrong'...

 

[scaramanga]

The public don't always know what they want.

Stop being so bloody condescending. There may be nuances to what the Leave voters want to see the final outcome to be, but the message was incredibly clear - they all wanted to leave.

Or say voted for brexit as a anti-immigration vote. Or as a protest vote because the NHS is underfunded etc. It is impossible for anyone to have voted for literal "brexit" because to this day no knows what that will be.

Yet despite that, they still voted for it.

That makes the message all the stronger. The fact that everyone knew Brexit was a leap into the unknown but still chose that over Remain should show you the level of public dislike for any option that resembles Remain.

Take the Sunderland Nissan car factory workers. None of them voted to lose their job. Many upset that the implications were not clear: that tariffs potentially weaken Nissans ability to produce cars in the U.K.

Nissan were heavily campaigning for Remain - there's no way Nissan workers didn't know the likely outcome of a Leave vote.

So interesting question is how much should leaders lead, interpret will, or follow the masses who often don't fully understand details of economics, geopolitics etc?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

Now you've got me. I'm a firm believer in votes counting more for those with more education, more understanding of economics and more understanding of politics.

Apparently though, that system isn't allowed and never would be so we can't have it. On that basis that all votes are equal, even from stupid people, then we have to accept the decision as what it is.

 

[milo]

I think there is if parliament uses the opportunity forpolitical point scoring or to essentially filibuster the will of the people away.

I don't see that happening. The March deadline might be under threat but that was self imposed to calm Tory nerves ahead of the conference and also has no mandate either.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I think that they are correct in theory - we have a parliamentary system and Parliament should be making decisions wherever possible.

The issue here is in the practice. We all know that Parliament will not decide/agree on any particular form of Brexit. Labour, as they currently stand, are no more than an anti-Tory protest party - same goes for the SNP. The Lib Dems won't go for any kind of brexit at all, and the Conservatives are split down the middle.

So if we can't reach any decision (and I think it's a very safe assumption that we won't), the result will be to keep the status quo. Whilst some are able to argue (incorrectly IMO) that no particular type of Brexit was voted for and therefore cannot be defined, the one thing we absolutely know the majority voted against was the status quo.

So the only solution I can see is that we give parliament a limited time to come to a decision after which it is in the hands of the PM because the least democratic result of all is to keep the status quo.

What process do we have that will achieve:

"So the only solution I can see is that we give parliament a limited time to come to a decision after which it is in the hands of the PM because the least democratic result of all is to keep the status quo"

Even if you are right and this is the only solution we abide by the rule of law just because Government want something they cant just impose it. This is not how our Country works, although unwritten we have a constitution and this would be unconstitutional.

Previously your opinion was that Government should not have to consult parliament, this has been overturned as would your suggestion above.

 

[milo]

That's why parliament should vote on new relations with the world. But not the process of fulfilling the referendum result of first liberating the country.

The argument put to the High Court (and both sides agreed with it) was once triggered Article 50 was irreversible. That means that the act of triggering it means that rights granted by act of parliament could be removed and that is illegal under British law without a further act of parliament.

Negotiations on A50 will also set the landscape for our future relationship with the EU and rest of the world. Once this has been passed it will be too late to debate it.

 

[Baleforce]

surely this is good news whatever your referendum choice, it means the process cannot be cavalier, even the most hardened brexiteer surely doesn't want us to get fudged over on the way out

 

[scaramanga]

What process do we have that will achieve:

"So the only solution I can see is that we give parliament a limited time to come to a decision after which it is in the hands of the PM because the least democratic result of all is to keep the status quo"

Even if you are right and this is the only solution we abide by the rule of law just because Government want something they cant just impose it. This is not how our Country works, although unwritten we have a constitution and this would be unconstitutional.

Previously your opinion was that Government should not have to consult parliament, this has been overturned as would your suggestion above.

I don't think parliament should be consulted. We should be able to trust parliament to enact the will of the people, but a huge number of MPs have made it clear they want to ignore them. If parliament is knowingly acting against the will of the people then wouldn't you consider that to be unconstitutional too?

I'm not suggesting the government imposes something because they want it, I'm suggesting they impose something because the electorate wants it.

 

[scaramanga]

surely this is good news whatever your referendum choice, it means the process cannot be cavalier, even the most hardened brexiteer surely doesn't want us to get fudgeed over on the way out

This decision means there won't be a way out, there are enough MPs who simply don't want Brexit to happen at all to just block any options. They can get away with it by pretending that they were voting nay because it wasn't the particular type of Brexit they wanted yet still block it all the same.

 

[milo]

Whatever anyone thinks of Brexit, if a nation opens up a referendum possibility, that referendum is delivered and a result achieved, wouldn't going against it put us in line with a multitude of other nations whose affairs we consider to be weird and dodgy? Put simply, May has a requirement to fully execute the will of the people as voted for in this referendum. Right? Even if some of us think it is (in fact) 'wrong'...

The thing is that executing the will of the people could mean a multitude of things from EEA membership to fully leaving Europe and trading on WTO terms. There is also the very likely possibility of an interim arrangement. All of these would meet the outcome of the referendum but none of them have a mandate.

 

[Baleforce]

This decision means there won't be a way out, there are enough MPs who simply don't want Brexit to happen at all to just block any options. They can get away with it by pretending that they were voting nay because it wasn't the particular type of Brexit they wanted yet still block it all the same.

at best they can stall and make it a cornerstone issue of the next GE

 

[Gutter Boy]

The argument put to the High Court (and both sides agreed with it) was once triggered Article 50 was irreversible. That means that the act of triggering it means that rights granted by act of parliament could be removed and that is illegal under British law without a further act of parliament.

Negotiations on A50 will also set the landscape for our future relationship with the EU and rest of the world. Once this has been passed it will be too late to debate it.

All article 50 does is hit the 'anything but the EU' button.

In 2 years time we could be giving a full 'jog-on' to the priesthood and joining CANZUK or NAFTA.

There's a world of possibilities out there after the EU. 85% of the world to look to work with. Lots to debate and strategise once the shackles are off.

 

[Gutter Boy]

surely this is good news whatever your referendum choice, it means the process cannot be cavalier, even the most hardened brexiteer surely doesn't want us to get fudgeed over on the way out

So we debate our negotiating tactics in front of the world? Play poker holding our cards facing up?