The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Gamston]

This is true. Nobody but the government gets to decide whether you are a remainer or a brexiter. You might want to tell Gamston that. He has difficulty comprehending.

I thought I was basically agreeing with a point you made.

 

Voters decided we are leaving the EU and the Government will decide how they go about carrying out the democratic wishes of the voters.

[biotechpete]

I thought I was basically agreeing with a point you made.

 

Voters decided we are leaving the EU and the Government will decide how they go about carrying out the democratic wishes of the voters.

 

It's not a decision for the executive (ie the government) though. That's not how our democracy works. In fact it's not democracy at all.

 

The process must be open to parliamentary scrutiny, because that is how people are represented in our democracy. The direction of Brexit is for parliament to decide.

[I1L2T3]

In what way? The government get to decide the way forward not the people.

 

That is your vision of democracy? The democratic representatives of the people cut from the process, and the whole thing left to a PM who has no electoral mandate and a few waifs and strays dragged into her inner circle to appease the Tory right-wing crazies, and all to implement an extremist vision of the process?

 

That looks like a massive democratic deficit.

 

Mays biggest mistake will be not going to the polls.

[Gamston]

It's not a decision for the executive (ie the government) though. That's not how our democracy works. In fact it's not democracy at all.

 

The process must be open to parliamentary scrutiny, because that is how people are represented in our democracy. The direction of Brexit is for parliament to decide.

Parliament's role should be nothing more than rubber stamping the wishes of the democratic voters in the referendum, who decided to instruct the Government to leave the EU. There is only one direction for BREXIT and that is for the UK to completely leave the EU. Any other direction, is against the democratic wishes of voters in the EU referendum.

[I1L2T3]

Parliament's role should be nothing more than rubber stamping the wishes of the democratic voters in the referendum, who decided to instruct the Government to leave the EU. There is only one direction for BREXIT and that is for the UK to completely leave the EU. Any other direction, is against the democratic wishes of voters in the EU referendum.

 

You keep saying all this but it's nonsense.

 

The referendum question said nothing about the terms of exit. Nothing at all. You can't infer the terms of exit from one simple question. It's ridiculous to do so.

 

Yes we will exit but there are several ways to do it.

[L00b]

Parliament's role should be nothing more than rubber stamping the wishes of the democratic voters in the referendum, who decided to instruct the Government to leave the EU.

You would do well to remember that MPs are not delegates of their constituents. They are representatives.

Members of the House of Commons hold, in effect, a triple mandate. They represent all the people of their constituency, their party and the interests of the country. It is a tenet of representative democracy that MPs are not delegates for their constituents. This means that, while the views of constituents are frequently considered, the actions of MPs are governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole.

(source)

 

You can disagree, of course. But it would be illogical to do so, considering the above is fact, not opinion.

 

You can also argue that MPs should act as delegates in relation to the referendum voting outcome, of course. But since the referendum said nothing whatsoever about the conditions and modalities of the UK's exit, then MPs shall be "governed by their determination of the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole" when they consider the matter, not by what "the government considers the best interests of their constituency, their party and the country as a whole". Nor by what "referendum voters considers their best interests and the country as a whole" (such as you), for that matter.

Edited December 21, 2016 by L00b

[alchresearch]

Interesting article today:

 

Landmark EU ruling: Legality of UK's Investigatory Powers Act challenged

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/21/eu_judgment/

[ez8004]

Parliament's role should be nothing more than rubber stamping the wishes of the democratic voters in the referendum, who decided to instruct the Government to leave the EU. There is only one direction for BREXIT and that is for the UK to completely leave the EU. Any other direction, is against the democratic wishes of voters in the EU referendum.

 

The uneducated like yourself are forever spouting nonsense. Read, yes read up on what parliamentary sovereignty is. Then read, yes more reading on how your MP represents you and then come back.

[apelike]

That is your vision of democracy?

 

No its no my vision of democracy but how it works. When we vote a government in its with the idea that they will be ruling the country as parliament does not rule it. This government will make a decision on how and what terms we leave the EU on, and parliaments job is then to agree or disagree on those terms. Parliament itself will have very little say on the terms and only debate what is put forward by the government.

 

Its the same as when the original referendum act bill was introduced in parliament as it was the government that draft up the original bill. The government then put forward the terms and conditions and only then does parliament debate it. In this case parliament failed badly in amending that act and it was passed without many amendments. Parliament even agreed that certain ex-pats abroad were ineligible to vote.

 

As its already been pointed out the triggering of A50 is very unlikely to be blocked by parliament. Once it is triggered then this government have the mandate to negotiate the terms of leaving with the EU which parliament can then scrutinise but that's all.

[biotechpete]

No its no my vision of democracy but how it works. When we vote a government in its with the idea that they will be ruling the country as parliament does not rule it. This government will make a decision on how and what terms we leave the EU on, and parliaments job is then to agree or disagree on those terms. Parliament itself will have very little say on the terms and only debate what is put forward by the government.

 

Its the same as when the original referendum act bill was introduced in parliament as it was the government that draft up the original bill. The government then put forward the terms and conditions and only then does parliament debate it. In this case parliament failed badly in amending that act and it was passed without many amendments. Parliament even agreed that certain ex-pats abroad were ineligible to vote.

 

As its already been pointed out the triggering of A50 is very unlikely to be blocked by parliament. Once it is triggered then this government have the mandate to negotiate the terms of leaving with the EU which parliament can then scrutinise but that's all.

 

1. We do not vote a government in. We only vote for an MP. The MPs decide the make-up of the government.

2. In parliamentary democracy the government only derives it's democratic legitimacy from the legislature (MPs). The executive is answerable to the legislature so in fact we are ruled by parliament and not the government. This is different to a presidential democracy where the executive has independent democratic legitimacy.

3. Parliament can debate any issue without the government putting it on the table. For instance private members' bills can, in theory, be put forward, debated and made law without the involvement of government. Another example of how we are, indeed, ruled by parliament. Although the number of private bills receiving royal assent has dropped dramatically since Blair's moves to shackle parliament post 1997 a fairly large number still make it.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-information-office/l03.pdf

4. It is not yet clear whether legally article 50 is reversible. In order for the government to negotiate a final settlement of Brexit independently and parliament, and for parliament to vote, it would need to be so. If it is not, parliament must debate and agree the acceptable limits/terms before A50 is triggered as this would necessarily lead to a change of our laws, which the executive is not entitled to enact without parliamentary agreement. Hence we have had the well publicised high court and supreme court cases, which by all accounts, the government look set to lose. In addition there has been a case brought at the high court in Dublin to attempt to get the European Court to rule on the matter too.