-
Features
Theresa May's Brexit plan suffers historic defeat
- Thread starter AirPoh
- Start date
Derec
Contributor
Damn! Worse than two thirds against May! Unfortunately for the remainers, the opposition leader, Comrade Jezza, is also a brexiter.
AirPoh
Veteran Member
She got her ass kicked.
Elixir
Made in America
So... what happens now? It's quite apparent that most Brits don't want Brexit, and many of those who voted for it have severe buyer's remorse. The vote to leave is on the books already, but what if they can't get any agreement about how to get it done?
What happens now is that the UK crashes out of the EU on March 29 with no deal, and the EU pressures Ireland to start putting up border controls along the Northern Irish border, and the Troubles start all over again.
And a bunch of automakers accelerate moving their factories out of the UK.
Elixir
Made in America
That's quite a bleak prediction... unless you're Vladimir Putin.
TV and credit cards
Contributor
As far as the EU is concerned, the British government can unilaterally reverse the decision.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,570
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
I like how May constantly has her name
on this. She didn’t want Brexit to begin with and inherited it. Then fuckwads like Boris Johnson realized they promised way too much and started running like pansies from reality, all while scorning May who is doing what they and the people voted for, though within the confines of reality.
As Derec notes, it is quite a bit ironic, the Labor Party scorning Brexit, when some of them want it too.
An EU court ruled Britain can just hit the undo button, so hopefully the madness can end.
on this. She didn’t want Brexit to begin with and inherited it. Then fuckwads like Boris Johnson realized they promised way too much and started running like pansies from reality, all while scorning May who is doing what they and the people voted for, though within the confines of reality.
As Derec notes, it is quite a bit ironic, the Labor Party scorning Brexit, when some of them want it too.
An EU court ruled Britain can just hit the undo button, so hopefully the madness can end.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,570
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
It wasn’t much of a surprise. The surprise is the Neocon like attitude/delusion of Brexiteers today thinking they’d have gotten a great deal had THEY negotiated.
barbos
Contributor
That would be undemocratic, like USSR dissolution where people had no say in the matters.
They need to redo the referendum at the very least.
southernhybrid
Contributor
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/15/world/europe/may-brexit-vote-fail.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
The above gives several options that might happen.
The above gives several options that might happen.
TSwizzle
I am unburdened by what has been.
A "referendum redo" would be equally undemocratic. It sounds like "vote again until you get it right".
AirPoh
Veteran Member
Not if there is enough support for the re-do.
barbos
Contributor
So May survived confidence vote.
AirPoh
Veteran Member
That was expected. Makes the whole thing seem like nothing more than political theater.
barbos
Contributor
Not if you find out that Putin interfered in the first referendum
See, Putin is very useful
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 40,421
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Some basics:
1) There never was a referendum on this issue*. There was a non-binding advisory plebiscite, by which it was made clear that the country was almost exactly evenly split on the very vague question of 'Should the UK leave the EU, or remain in it'.
2) The sovereign powers in the UK lie with parliament. Not with the people; Not with the government; Not with the Prime Minister. This was resolved by means of a civil war in the 1640s.
3) The purpose of the 2016 plebiscite was entirely party political, and had fuck all to do with anything other than keeping the Conservative Party rank and file in line behind the then Prime Minister. That it was ever allowed to affect the entire nation is a disgrace; That the current PM has used it to try to establish herself as the holder of sovereign power in the nation (in the name of enacting the 'will of the people') is a crime. The people have an opinion, not a will; That opinion is 'we don't know'; And 'the people' are not in charge here - that's not how the UK is governed, and never has been.
There's no question that brexit is hugely harmful to the nation. Parliament recognises this fact. Parliament therefore has a duty to stop this harm from befalling the nation. They also have the (sole) authority to impose their opinion, and need to stand up to May, who seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that the UK has a President, and that she holds that office.
Brexit is currently being used as an excuse for a coup attempt by the government, to overthrow parliament, and elevate the PM to an autocratic position. Parliament must not tolerate this any longer.
The UK doesn't have direct democracy. If Ms May, or Mr Farage, or anyone else, wants to change that fact, then they need to introduce a bill to that effect in parliament, and to gain sufficient support in both chambers to pass that change to the UK constitution.
Nobody, not government, not the Prime Minister, and not the people of the UK, has the right to make any demands of any kind on the basis of the results of the 2016 plebiscite. That may be something that many feel is wrong, even immoral. It may even actually be anti-democratic, for many definitions of 'democratic'. But that's how the UK is governed, and to attempt to circumvent that structure in which parliament is sovereign are literally treasonous. Regardless of the half-baked opinions of the owners of the tabloid press (and their moronic readership).
Other than the 1975 referendum, which was an actual referendum, in which the people voted overwhelmingly (67 - 33%) to remain in the EEC. Binding referenda like the 1975 poll are rare, but such 'real' referenda should ideally be required before any very long term or fundamental change to the structure of the nation. A binding referendum on a fully detailed change to the law should, perhaps be held in the near future, as one way of resolving the current crisis. But such a poll would require a fully detailed proposal or bill on which to vote.
1) There never was a referendum on this issue*. There was a non-binding advisory plebiscite, by which it was made clear that the country was almost exactly evenly split on the very vague question of 'Should the UK leave the EU, or remain in it'.
2) The sovereign powers in the UK lie with parliament. Not with the people; Not with the government; Not with the Prime Minister. This was resolved by means of a civil war in the 1640s.
3) The purpose of the 2016 plebiscite was entirely party political, and had fuck all to do with anything other than keeping the Conservative Party rank and file in line behind the then Prime Minister. That it was ever allowed to affect the entire nation is a disgrace; That the current PM has used it to try to establish herself as the holder of sovereign power in the nation (in the name of enacting the 'will of the people') is a crime. The people have an opinion, not a will; That opinion is 'we don't know'; And 'the people' are not in charge here - that's not how the UK is governed, and never has been.
There's no question that brexit is hugely harmful to the nation. Parliament recognises this fact. Parliament therefore has a duty to stop this harm from befalling the nation. They also have the (sole) authority to impose their opinion, and need to stand up to May, who seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that the UK has a President, and that she holds that office.
Brexit is currently being used as an excuse for a coup attempt by the government, to overthrow parliament, and elevate the PM to an autocratic position. Parliament must not tolerate this any longer.
The UK doesn't have direct democracy. If Ms May, or Mr Farage, or anyone else, wants to change that fact, then they need to introduce a bill to that effect in parliament, and to gain sufficient support in both chambers to pass that change to the UK constitution.
Nobody, not government, not the Prime Minister, and not the people of the UK, has the right to make any demands of any kind on the basis of the results of the 2016 plebiscite. That may be something that many feel is wrong, even immoral. It may even actually be anti-democratic, for many definitions of 'democratic'. But that's how the UK is governed, and to attempt to circumvent that structure in which parliament is sovereign are literally treasonous. Regardless of the half-baked opinions of the owners of the tabloid press (and their moronic readership).
Other than the 1975 referendum, which was an actual referendum, in which the people voted overwhelmingly (67 - 33%) to remain in the EEC. Binding referenda like the 1975 poll are rare, but such 'real' referenda should ideally be required before any very long term or fundamental change to the structure of the nation. A binding referendum on a fully detailed change to the law should, perhaps be held in the near future, as one way of resolving the current crisis. But such a poll would require a fully detailed proposal or bill on which to vote.
Last edited:
barbos
Contributor
True, but the government bound itself into a corner by promising to implement results of the referendum, so they are doing as promised.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 50,570
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Not really, as this would be a vote on the actual deal.
The original vote was for a fantasy Brexit deal that was never possible. The second vote would be on the actual Brexit deal. It'd be like voting to strike in a Union and then voting later on a collective bargain agreement.