What's May up to? General election 08/06/2017

[El Cid]

The Prime Minister said she was calling a general election because Parliament was blocking Brexit. But three quarters of MPs and two thirds of the Lords voted for Article 50 – so that’s not true.

A month ago she told her official spokesman to rule out an early general election, and that wasn’t true either.

[apelike]

interesting times we live in?

 

They have always been interesting but the cliches aren't.

 

---------- Post added 19-04-2017 at 15:33 ----------

 

The Prime Minister said she was calling a general election because Parliament was blocking Brexit. But three quarters of MPs and two thirds of the Lords voted for Article 50 – so that’s not true.

 

But the MP's and the Lords voted reluctantly and still wish to scrutinise and vote and pass any final deal.

[Carlinate]

We had a referendum on changing the voting system and we voted no, so obviously that decision stands as the will of the people that we want to retain FPTP in perpetuity.

 

Perhaps you could answer a question with regard to the choices offered the electorate in the referendum regarding changing the voting system?

 

The Proportional Representation plus Single Transferable vote system was reintroduced into Northern Ireland by the British government in 1973.

 

Following partition the Unionist majority did away with PR because it was too fair to the nationalist minority.

 

It was reintroduced in order to provide the most democratic method of voting as yet devised by man into an area where violence was being used as a direct result of institutionalized sectarian discrimination.

 

This means that PR+STV had been in use in the United Kingdom for 38 years prior to the vote referendum in 2011.

 

So here's the question, why wasn't a tried and tested system offered? Why was the Alternative Vote AV system chosen as the alternative on offer?

 

I have my own theory, but I'd like to hear your view.

[apelike]

 

So here's the question, why wasn't a tried and tested system offered? Why was the Alternative Vote AV system chosen as the alternative on offer?

 

I have my own theory, but I'd like to hear your view.

 

You have probably guessed already but it was almost certain to fail as it is just too complicated for many and the Government knew it. I believe Clegg at the time wanted PR but being in a coalition got railroaded by Cameron.

[biotechpete]

You have probably guessed already but it was almost certain to fail as it is just too complicated for many and the Government knew it. I believe Clegg at the time wanted PR but being in a coalition got railroaded by Cameron.

 

It was a compromise of coalition and Cameron being canny. AV maintained the constituency link but I think Cameron knew it would fail.

[L00b]

But the MP's and the Lords voted reluctantly and still wish to scrutinise and vote and pass any final deal.

I think that's called a parliamentarian democracy, isn't it?

 

Have people already forgotten the whole Royal Prerogative omnishambles? Is the Tory PR machine that good?

Lord Kerr the author of article 50 and a couple of other constitutional lawyers say that the Article 50 notice can be withdrawn at any point before a deal is voted upon by the EU, unilaterally. They say a country cannot be forced to leave.

 

Barnier seems to disagree, so much so that he had it written into the EU negotiating document. But the document is not legally binding and the position hasn't been tested in court.

The relevant bit is in bold: Lord Kerr and Barnier's opposed views are no more binding or authoritative one than the other. It's uncharted territory. And eminently political.

 

Statutorily, Article 50 has been formally triggered, so the UK wouldn't be "forced" to leave: it's already left, of its own accord, 2 years from 31 March 2017. Automatic operation of law. It can leave sooner if it wants to, by declaring 'no deal required', unilaterally and effectively leaving, and seeing the EU in the Hague ITC in due course. It can leave later, if and only if the EU27 agree. But staying in by rescinding Article 50 is not on the cards: there is no statutory mechanism for it. The UK would be very heavily dependent on the EU27's goodwill to do so.

 

Objectively, can you really envisage the EU27 just giving the nod to a British request to withdraw its Article 50 instrument, and nothing more was said ever?

 

Come on, pete, we're the thinking grown ups here

 

Brussels and the EU27 have all but washed their hands off the UK already, they're busy planning the 'next phase', freed from the UK's usual braking on all 4. Read some continental (respected) press (Le Monde, Die Zeit), it might surprise you.

Edited April 19, 2017 by L00b

[Carlinate]

You have probably guessed already but it was almost certain to fail as it is just too complicated for many and the Government knew it. I believe Clegg at the time wanted PR but being in a coalition got railroaded by Cameron.

 

" It was too complicated for many? "

 

The PR+STV system has been in operation in the Republic of Ireland since the country's inception in 1922.

 

It is in use in Malta, Australia, New Zealand and literally dozens of other countries.

 

Not all of whom use the STV add on as it does add a small level of complexity but it also adds even more true democratic representation.

 

Are you saying that the British electorate isn't as smart as all these other countries?

 

No, that wasn't the reason I was thinking of as to why it wasn't on offer.

[biotechpete]

I think that's called a parliamentarian democracy, isn't it?

 

How long has the UK been one, again?

The relevant bit is in bold: Lord Kerr and Barnier's opposed views are no more binding or authoritative one than the other. It's uncharted territory. And eminently political.

 

Objectively, can you really envisage the EU27 just giving the nod to a British request to withdraw its Article 50 instrument, and nothing more was said ever? Come on, pete, we're the thinking grown ups here

 

Come on L00b, I'm allowed to dream a little aren't I? A Lib Dem majority government? I think the EU would welcome the withdrawal of Article 50 with perhaps a condition that no other referendums or A50 notices could be made within a period of time. Conceivably, that could only democratically, be the end of the parliament (2022).

 

Realistically, although I'll fight hard, I can't see anything but a Conservative government, which makes it all rather moot. May is committed to Brexit at any cost, in my view, linked to her stance on immigration.

[L00b]

Come on L00b, I'm allowed to dream a little aren't I?

Of course, and far from me the intention of ever taking that away from you

 

But...

A Lib Dem majority government? I think the EU would welcome the withdrawal of Article 50 with perhaps a condition that no other referendums or A50 notices could be made within a period of time. Conceivably, that could only democratically, be the end of the parliament (2022).

...that'd be too late. See my edits above, copy-pasted now for clarity:

 

Statutorily, Article 50 has been formally triggered, so the UK wouldn't be "forced" to leave: it's already left, of its own accord, 2 years from 31 March 2017. Automatic operation of law. It can leave sooner if it wants to, by declaring 'no deal required', unilaterally and effectively leaving, and seeing the EU in the Hague ITC in due course. It can leave later, if and only if the EU27 agree. But staying in by rescinding Article 50 is not on the cards: there is no statutory mechanism for it. The UK would be very heavily dependent on the EU27's goodwill to do so. As in, over a barrel.

 

It goes back to my earlier comment: (seemingly,) the UK continuously failing to consider the "what's in it for me" question, viewed from the EU27's respective perspectives. And that failure to consider the other side's motives and goals at all times, is a cardinal sin for a 'negotiator'.

 

Brussels and the EU27 have all but washed their hands off the UK already, they're busy planning the 'next phase', freed from the UK's usual braking on all 4. Read some continental (respected) press (Le Monde, Die Zeit), it might surprise you (but not in a nice way, for a committed remainer).

Edited April 19, 2017 by L00b

[gomgeg]

It was a compromise of coalition and Cameron being canny. AV maintained the constituency link but I think Cameron knew it would fail.

Cameron wasn't very canny on the last referendum. He was convinced he would win that one as well, and probably would have if he'd come back from his negotiations with any sort of deal.

As regards the coming GE May is taking the chance of losing out on an extra three years in power.

She's very likely to win this one then Jeremy Corbyn will get the boot and hopefully Labour will then elect a more credible leader who will then have five years to come up with a more electable manifesto.

But even that might be doubtful with the present Labour membership and election process.