Current Affairs EU In or Out

[The Esk]

Parliament discusses it - Government does it. It's really not that hard to fathom. Parliament does not govern.

Parliament legislates, the Government executes. Government does not legislate. In the case of dispute, the Courts adjudicate.

I'm sure you are familiar with the concept of the separation of powers (L'Esprit des Louis 1748).

“everything would come to an end if the legislative, executive and judicial powers of government were to be exercised by the same person or authority”

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Then it's up to the tories to push it through. They got the mandate to govern, so they gave the people the vote - who then gave them the green light; even from opposition voters (Like meself) at the GE.

The opposition have no cause for complaint, nor any place to make demands imo.

No, it's up to the Tories to get it through the House, not circumvent the democratic process.

The 'opposition' to Brexit consisted of half of their own party! That said, there's been virtual unanimous agreement that Brexit will be delivered.

What is up for debate is what that actually looks like. People voted leave, they didn't vote for what specific elements of our leaving should be the priority. Therefore the House has every right (and it's their duty) to ensure that our exit is delivered in a way that is the best possible outcome for the country. They therefore have every right to make demands on what the priorities should be. Why should the PM and the 3 Stooges have the sole say on what those priorities should be? Who gave them the mandate to decide that unilaterally?

 

[Old Blue 2]

Parliamentary sovereignty is a long established cornerstone of our constitution, however as has been pointed by by @The Esk and @Foot Long Hot Dog, the constitution does not give the Government the right to take away people's rights, it confers the power in Parliament instead.

ghost,
Your post makes well-made points, except for the above.

The Government DOES take away people's rights without reference to/consultation with them at all, AND also by not indulging in any discussion/debate/vote in Parliament. The Government of the day can and does do it.

Let me give you a singular example. In the Thatcher era, the Government stripped the right of association (i.e. being in a Trade Union) from employees in GCHQ. Fact. Fourteen workers who refused to give up their TU membership were sacked. Fact. A prerogative Order in Council had been used by the Prime Minister to ban trade union activities by civil servants working at GCHQ.

Esk, Hot Dog: note the above point...

 

[JonS]

I'm no legal or constitutional expert but am going to stick my neck out here.

I reckon the supreme court is going to overturn the recent court decision on the basis that parliament acted to call a referendum on continued membership of the EU which stated or implied that the result of the referendum would be carried out/acted on

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

No, it's up to the Tories to get it through the House, not circumvent the democratic process.

And how, exactly, are they circumventing the democratic' process? It was put to the country, not just a few MP's. I'm sure the general blueprint covers the vast majority of the issues to everybody's consent. (Bar the die-hard europhilic remainers)

The 'opposition' to Brexit consisted of half of their own party!

You're missing the point. By my estimate there were millions of government opposition voters (Me again) voted to leave.

All's this is doing is highlighting the contempt that the westminster bubble has for the proleteriat. A casual disregard for the general public who put them in their ivory towers. Abusing their privilege....AGAIN. If I send out for a pint of milk, I want it to come back in time for it still to be a pint of milk...Not so long that it's turned to cheese and have it explained that the same cheese is some sort of bonus.

Nor do I want someone to decide for me on the type of milk. Or where to buy it, or what to do with the change.

People voted leave, they didn't vote for what specific elements of our leaving should be the priority

Where was the hoo-hah when camoron came back with a blank piece of paper, thereby essentially forcing the vote to become a straight in/out issue? Clue - there was none. A few murmurs was all.

You talk of democracy - where was the EU democracy then? Oh, of course, we're only 60-odd million people out of a populace of 500m+, but it's no different to what the remain side are arguing for now. Remain is in the minority, exactly like the UK was when camoron went over to Brussels. Like we've always been in that insidiously undemocratic cabal.

Why should the PM and the 3 Stooges have the sole say on what those priorities should be? Who gave them the mandate to decide that unilaterally?

I don't know many times it has to be spelled out, but once again - They got the biggest share of seats at the GE and gave us the vote. They were the ONLY party to offer us the vote (And I still voted against them at the GE). Without a public vote there is no true democracy. Well we voted; and told the MP's what it was about. They have their instructions. It's up to them to adhere to the will of the public, not decide for themselves after they've been told and after a public vote's been taken.

Besides, I'm quite sure the general blueprint is the same on both sides. The public entrusted government to sort the issues, not the opposition to demand they get their wishes on the entire process. You have to have won an election to do that - they won neither.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

I'm no legal or constitutional expert but am going to stick my neck out here.

I reckon the supreme court is going to overturn the recent court decision on the basis that parliament acted to call a referendum on continued membership of the EU which stated or implied that the result of the referendum would be carried out/acted on

I don't see how that changes the constitution though?

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

And how, exactly, are they circumventing the democratic' process? It was put to the country, not just a few MP's. I'm sure the general blueprint covers the vast majority of the issues to everybody's consent. (Bar the die-hard europhilic remainers)



You're missing the point. By my estimate there were millions of government opposition voters (Me again) voted to leave.

All's this is doing is highlighting the contempt that the westminster bubble has for the proleteriat. A casual disregard for the general public who put them in their ivory towers. Abusing their privilege....AGAIN. If I send out for a pint of milk, I want it to come back in time for it still to be a pint of milk...Not so long that it's turned to cheese and have it explained that the same cheese is some sort of bonus.

Nor do I want someone to decide for me on the type of milk. Or where to buy it, or what to do with the change.



Where was the hoo-hah when camoron came back with a blank piece of paper, thereby essentially forcing the vote to become a straight in/out issue? Clue - there was none. A few murmurs was all.

You talk of democracy - where was the EU democracy then? Oh, of course, we're only 60-odd million people out of a populace of 500m+, but it's no different to what the remain side are arguing for now. Remain is in the minority, exactly like the UK was when camoron went over to Brussels. Like we've always been in that insidiously undemocratic cabal.



I don't know many times it has to be spelled out, but once again - They got the biggest share of seats at the GE and gave us the vote. They were the ONLY party to offer us the vote (And I still voted against them at the GE). Without a public vote there is no true democracy. Well we voted; and told the MP's what it was about. They have their instructions. It's up to them to adhere to the will of the public, not decide for themselves after they've been told and after a public vote's been taken.

Besides, I'm quite sure the general blueprint is the same on both sides. The public entrusted government to sort the issues, not the opposition to demand they get their wishes on the entire process. You have to have won an election to do that - they won neither.

Bill-hooks. Brexit could mean any of about fifteen different scenarios, all with different repurcussions. They have no instructions on how to proceed.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

And how, exactly, are they circumventing the democratic' process? It was put to the country, not just a few MP's.

It's been explained ad infinitum why May's decision to avoid a parliamentary vote goes against the basic premise of a parliamentary democracy.

If you can't grasp that then there's no point in discussing it further.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

Bill-hooks. Brexit could mean any of about fifteen different scenarios, all with different repurcussions. They have no instructions on how to proceed.

Which is why it's for those elected into government to proceed. Not somebody who lost a GE and a referendum telling them they know what's best.

If they knew what was best they'd have at least won one argument - they won neither.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Which is why it's for those elected into government to proceed. Not somebody who lost a GE and a referendum telling them they know what's best.

If they knew what was best they'd have at least won one argument - they won neither.

1. We don't elect governments, we elect a body to make legislation. From that, a government is formed. This can actually be from those with less than half of the vote (which it usually and currently is). For the whole parliamentary democracy to have legitimacy, they have to remain accountable to the people that we elect, MPs. So if you want those who have been elected to proceed, you want the House of Commons to proceed with it.

2. You're asserting that people vote for the most reasonable course of action, which of course has been demonstrated wrong on countless occasions from the menial to the extreme.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I don't know many times it has to be spelled out, but once again - They got the biggest share of seats at the GE and gave us the vote. They were the ONLY party to offer us the vote

They made a manifesto pledge to have a vote, they didn't give us the vote. Parliament gave us the vote when the referendum Bill was passed - with a 6-1 majority in the House.

Welcome to the point.

 

[The Esk]

The Government DOES take away people's rights without reference to/consultation with them at all.

Let me give you a singular example. In the Thatcher era, the Government stripped the right of association (i.e. being in a Trade Union) from employees in GCHQ. Fact. Fourteen workers who refused to give up their TU membership were sacked. The Government of the day can and does do it.

You are comparing apples and pears. Thatcher used the Royal Prerogative on the basis the executive had the power to regulate the civil service. This was taken to court through judicial review. The High Court found in favour of the unions. The Court of Appeal then determined that 'national security' trumped propriety.

The case subsequently went to the House of Lords which found that whilst the royal prerogative is subject to judicial review, there were exemptions, national security being one.

I would not use the GCHQ case as an example supporting proper government, democracy and the appropriate use of executive power. It was, and still is, one of the greatest abuses of power ever performed by a British Government.

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

You're asserting that people vote for the most reasonable course of action, which of course has been demonstrated wrong on countless occasions from the menial to the extreme.

Oh, and of course, PARLIAMENT is infallible, isn't it?

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

They made a manifesto pledge to have a vote, they didn't give us the vote. Parliament gave us the vote when the referendum Bill was passed - with a 6-1 majority in the House.

Welcome to the point.

I see. 6-1 majority, eh?

And only NOW (When the vote went against THEIR will) they want to have their say on the terms, instead of making more choices for the electorate before the referendum. And you preach to me about democracy?

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

Oh, and of course, PARLIAMENT is infallible, isn't it?

Parliament is accountable.