Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

No laws have been broken.

They would have been if they had carried on without referring to Parliament.

And, by the way, your claim was a general one. Somebody independent of the government needs to be the arbiter of what the government is allowed to do within the British legal framework. We can't have the government be above the law.

[jeremyp]

That's not what the EU have said.

I can't believe you had the nerve to write that. You think the EU should have more right to decide what is lawful in Britain than the British courts.

[Jack Knave]

They would have been if they had carried on without referring to Parliament.

Specify the law that would have been broken.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Specify the law that would have been broken.

The ''Don't let the guys who crashed the car drive it to the Scrapyard'' law?

[jeremyp]

Which gets you nowhere in taking their vote against tyge deal to be a vote in favour of remain.

This all assumes that a referendum has to be a binary choice. The referendum that we have just had didn't even need to have just one question. Likewise, any referendum to validate the negotiated deal that we will hopefully have need not be structured as a simple yes/no. It could ask

• Do you wish to accept the negotiated Brexit deal? Yes/No
• If the deal is rejected, would you prefer:
  
  • Brexit on WTO terms
  • Stay in the EU

The questions may not necessarily be exactly that, but the straight yes/no idea is bunk.

By the way, I would rather not have another referendum, but that we let Parliament do the job it was created for.

[jeremyp]

Specify the law that would have been broken.

The constitutional right of Parliament to make and repeal primary legislation. You know, the same right that you misguidedly thought the EU was infringing.

[Nearly Sane]

This all assumes that a referendum has to be a binary choice. The referendum that we have just had didn't even need to have just one question. Likewise, any referendum to validate the negotiated deal that we will hopefully have need not be structured as a simple yes/no. It could ask

• Do you wish to accept the negotiated Brexit deal? Yes/No
• If the deal is rejected, would you prefer:
  
  • Brexit on WTO terms
  • Stay in the EU

The questions may not necessarily be exactly that, but the straight yes/no idea is bunk.

By the way, I would rather not have another referendum, but that we let Parliament do the job it was created for.

Conceptually this might work though I think that the phrasing of the options or indeed deciding what they are would be an issue. More problematically, I don't think that we have the political structure to deal with this

[jeremyp]

Conceptually this might work though I think that the phrasing of the options or indeed deciding what they are would be an issue.

We would sort something out. It's the kind of thing that the ONS does all the time - making questions that are unbiased and not leading.

More problematically, I don't think that we have the political structure to deal with this

What on Earth do you mean by that? If we have the political structure to deal with a yes/no referendum (in view of the current mess, maybe we don't), we surely have the political structure to deal with a better constructed referendum.

[Jack Knave]

The constitutional right of Parliament to make and repeal primary legislation. You know, the same right that you misguidedly thought the EU was infringing.

Firstly this wasn't done for the negotiation of the treaties. Secondly, the government has a mandate from the people who trump parliament. And thirdly, no laws are needed to be made, here.

[ProfessorDavey]

After 2 years that's it, regardless, unless everyone agrees to carry on.

Correct, and it is in the interests of both sides to extend if required.

Clearly the UK will be desperate to extend if not deal has been reached as otherwise they are staring into the abyss. But the EU will too, not because of trade, which I think isn't as big a deal to them as some on the Brexit side claim. No it will be because there are national of EU member states living here and those states will want to protect their interests which wouldn't be the case if the UK left prior to a deal being finalised.

So all in all I think it most likely that there won't be a deal in 2 years (remember all 27 member states must agree) and that the negotiation period will be extended.

[Nearly Sane]

We would sort something out. It's the kind of thing that the ONS does all the time - making questions that are unbiased and not leading.
What on Earth do you mean by that? If we have the political structure to deal with a yes/no referendum (in view of the current mess, maybe we don't), we surely have the political structure to deal with a better constructed referendum.

it's not a question of leading questions, the choice of questions are political decisions about what the possible options are, and I'm not clear that the second part in your example can be phrased in a binary fashion.


Yes/no questions are easy to structure and get support on. Even with that we had multiple campaigns arguing different takes, god knows how a multiple question referendum would fair.

Anyhoo this has virtually nothing to do with it being the political realities that stops the referendum from feasibility

[jeremyp]

Firstly this wasn't done for the negotiation of the treaties.

All the treaties were ratified by Parliament.

Secondly, the government has a mandate from the people who trump parliament.

No they don't. Britain has a representative democracy. The will of the people is exercised through their elected representatives in parliament.

In any case, I haven't heard a single MP say they are going to stop Brexit, only try to influence its terms. Even Nick Clegg only went as far as saying he would attempt to mandate a soft Brexit, not no Brexit.

And thirdly, no laws are needed to be made, here.

The court disagrees with you. Since you know absolutely fuck all about how this country is run, I'll take their decision over yours unless the supreme court overrides them.

[jeremyp]

it's not a question of leading questions, the choice of questions are political decisions about what the possible options are, and I'm not clear that the second part in your example can be phrased in a binary fashion.

As things stand, I don't see that there are any other options. I could have added a third option: carry on negotiating, but that would require the EU to cooperate (as would staying in to an extent, but we are more likely to get that cooperation).

Yes/no questions are easy to structure and get support on. Even with that we had multiple campaigns arguing different takes, god knows how a multiple question referendum would fair.

I'm sorry, but if the British public is too stupid to cope with more than two options on a question, it strikes me it can't possibly be qualified to understand the issues in any referendum.

What's the problem with multiple campaigns? We survive them at general election time.

Anyhoo this has virtually nothing to do with it being the political realities that stops the referendum from feasibility

What are these political realities?

[ProfessorDavey]

Secondly, the government has a mandate from the people who trump parliament.

Wrong - the people elect parliament and parliament then decides who is in government and during that parliamentary term parliament 'trumps' the people, in that they may act without direct reference to the electorate. Of course when the parliamentary term comes to an end they are beholden to the people once more, who may kick them out if they don't like what they did in the previous 5 years.

And both the people and parliament/government are beholden to the law. Parliament can change the law, but it isn't above the law in as much as it cannot act unlawfully.

[Nearly Sane]

As things stand, I don't see that there are any other options. I could have added a third option: carry on negotiating, but that would require the EU to cooperate (as would staying in to an extent, but we are more likely to get that cooperation).

I'm sorry, but if the British public is too stupid to cope with more than two options on a question, it strikes me it can't possibly be qualified to understand the issues in any referendum.

What's the problem with multiple campaigns? We survive them at general election time.
What are these political realities?

That the Tories cannot offer a second referendum without splitting the party, that any early election will have a walkover for the Tories.

[ProfessorDavey]

That the Tories cannot offer a second referendum without splitting the party, that any early election will have a walkover for the Tories.

The party is already split - don't forget that the majority of Tory MPs supported remain. And new we are seeing splits in their leave block, the clearest evidence being last week's resignation.

The Tories are now split three ways; remain, sold Brexit and hard Brexit. Ultimately May may conclude that getting the electorate to make the final decision, rather than her and her government might just be the smartest way to prevent her party terminally tearing itself apart. She can then transfer the blame for doing something that two thirds of her party don't want onto others (the people) rather than herself.

[Nearly Sane]

The party is already split - don't forget that the majority of Tory MPs supported remain. And new we are seeing splits in their leave block, the clearest evidence being last week's resignation.

The Tories are now split three ways; remain, sold Brexit and hard Brexit. Ultimately May may conclude that getting the electorate to make the final decision, rather than her and her government might just be the smartest way to prevent her party terminally tearing itself apart. She can then transfer the blame for doing something that two thirds of her party don't want onto others (the people) rather than herself.

Actual party splits are different from disagreements.

[ProfessorDavey]

Actual party splits are different from disagreements.

Indeed and splits are the sort of thing that makes an MP resign from parliament, resulting in a by-election - just as we saw last week.

If the Tories really do go for hard Brexit I think we see further resignations as hard Brexit is completely anathema to a certain type of Tory, which is rather well represented in parliament, although perhaps less so in the membership.

[Hope]

Wrong - the people elect parliament and parliament then decides who is in government and during that parliamentary term parliament 'trumps' the people, in that they may act without direct reference to the electorate. Of course when the parliamentary term comes to an end they are beholden to the people once more, who may kick them out if they don't like what they did in the previous 5 years.

And both the people and parliament/government are beholden to the law. Parliament can change the law, but it isn't above the law in as much as it cannot act unlawfully.

PD, as I read JK's posts leading up to the one you quote, I get the feeling that he is referring specifically to the mandate that the government may or may not have been given by the public in the referendum.  It can be argued - and has been by a number of folk - that in passing the legislation that initiated the referendum, Parliament returned the primacy from themselves to the public.

Now, I'm not sure that it as clean cut as that, simply because there was no instruction in that legislation as to the nature (binding or advisory) of the referendum.  As a result, I understand that the law is somewhat over a barrel as both arguments can legitimately be made.

[ProfessorDavey]

It can be argued - and has been by a number of folk - that in passing the legislation that initiated the referendum, Parliament returned the primacy from themselves to the public.

Then that would be in error. Parliament enacted the referendum as advisory only, thereby retaining their primacy. They didn't have to - they could have made the referendum binding, as was the case for the AV vs FPTP referendum. They chose not to and therefore primacy remains with parliament.

This is the actual wording on the official parliamentary briefing paper on the bill on the subject:

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.'

[Nearly Sane]

Indeed and splits are the sort of thing that makes an MP resign from parliament, resulting in a by-election - just as we saw last week.

If the Tories really do go for hard Brexit I think we see further resignations as hard Brexit is completely anathema to a certain type of Tory, which is rather well represented in parliament, although perhaps less so in the membership.

No, one MP resigning isn't a split either. A real split in the Tories would need a number of senior Tories to be willing to out the Tory govt at risk. History indicates this won"t happen. Tories are the racer snakes of politics.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, one MP resigning isn't a split either. A real split in the Tories would need a number of senior Tories to be willing to out the Tory govt at risk. History indicates this won"t happen. Tories are the racer snakes of politics.

When was the last time an MP completely resigned over irreconcilable differences with his or her party. Not just flounced out with the view of returning in a contrived by-election (e.g. Goldsmith, Carswell, Davis).

[ProfessorDavey]

No, one MP resigning isn't a split either. A real split in the Tories would need a number of senior Tories to be willing to out the Tory govt at risk. History indicates this won"t happen.

The Tories were far and away the most split party throughout the referendum campaign - sure there were a couple of odd-ball Labourites for Brexit, but by and large they were pro-remain. The Lib-Dems, SNP, Greens and Plaid completely for remain, and UKIP for Leave. The Tories were split right down the middle, and still are - just because the referendum is over doesn't mean that the divisions are healed - they aren't, by a long, long way.

[Nearly Sane]

When was the last time an MP completely resigned over irreconcilable differences with his or her party. Not just flounced out with the view of returning in a contrived by-election (e.g. Goldsmith, Carswell, Davis).

and? It's not a split. It's someone people have never heard of and will at best be a quiz question in the next few years about 'what's his face'.

[ProfessorDavey]

and? It's not a split. It's someone people have never heard of and will at best be a quiz question in the next few years about 'what's his face'.

So you think the complete schism during the campaign is now somehow miraculously healed do you? Don't be daft. There may currently be a bit of an uneasy truce, but it won't last as negotiation aspiration becomes clearer and things get tougher. The pro-remain Cameroons haven't gone away - they are biding their time and boy do they hold a grudge.