Well, that’s another problem with your analogy - comparing Brexit to something positive. It’s more akin to being asked ‘if we should build a new building’ and finding out the building built is a charnelhouse for Soylent Green.
Will still happen if Brexit happens. Imagine what happens, if May’s deal passes, when the first EU regulation that is contentious and unpopular is handed down from Brussels.
Imagine if, under No Deal, medicines run out, food costs skyrocket, and jobs leave in droves.
Both will fuel the far right more than cancelling Brexit will.
I for one am not inclined to think appeasing the far right will make the far right go away. That kind of thinking was bust in 1939.
No.
We stand and stop this now. If we Brexit in future, it should be on a concrete plan, honestly presented and debated.
This? Here? This isn’t democratic. It’s a mockery, an abortion of democracy. Letting it pass gives the signal that as long as you win, it doesn’t matter how you win. Fake news will go into overdrive.
Everyone in politics (which, in a democracy, means everyone) needs to understand the distinction between what *can be done, what may be done, and what should be done. The problem with Brexit, ultimately, stems from a lack of this understanding.
Suppose that there is a referendum asking whether the government should set the value of pi to exactly 4. The referendum passes. What should the government do? The question is irrelevant, because the government can’t set the value of pi. The government’s failure to change the value of pi doesn’t reflect on the government; it reflects (and very poorly) on the electorate, who tried to force the government to do something impossible. And it also reflects very poorly on the previous government, who even asked such a foolish question to begin with.
This is the same situation that the UK faces. The People have spoken, and what they want is a deal with all of the privileges and none of the responsibilities of EU membership. Which is impossible. It was irresponsible to ask the question in the first place, and the only responsible course of action is to either ignore the response entirely, or to ask another question which only admits of answers which are actually possible.
Not only can they do that, they should do that. They asked the public for advice on whether to leave the EU, it turns out that that advice was dangerously wrong. It is the job of Parliament, representing the interest of their constituents, to ensure that this dangerous event does not come to pass.
Even if the majority of people want to leave the EU, still, that should not be the only determining factor. We want many other things, things that require a strong economy and sensible trade policies, those things including affordable food and medicine, and god jobs. It is the job of the representatives to deliver this, and if not all of it is possible, to have the balls to say so, and to make the right decision. Which in this case is quite clearly not to leave the EU.
Just for curiousity, I looked at the West Virginia state Constitution to see how the people can amend their fundamental document.
Turns out it’s a four step process, under Article XIV:
-
People who want to call a constitutional convention can petition the Legislature to call a referendum on establishing a constitutional convention. If both chambers pass a law for the convention, there will be a referendum three months later.
-
At the referendum, the people vote whether they are in favour of holding a constitutional convention.
-
If the people vote for a constitutional convention, the convention meets and can propose constitutional amendments.
-
There is then a second referendum, where the people vote whether or not to enact the proposed amendments.
That strikes me as a well-balanced, orderly process for something as significant as a constitutional amendment, which can have major effects for years. The people initiate it, through their elected officials and then by an initial referendum; an elected convention studies the issues in detail and come up with a proposal; the people then decide whether to approve what the smaller body came up with.
Pity Britain didn’t think the process through with that much attention.
Just to point out that I am predicting more populism. It could be of the left or right wing variety. The centre/establishment of both main parties will become less relevant. I do believe right wing populism will benefit more but I say this only tentatively.
I don’t see the problem. If the drawbacks to Brexit were fully understood by the people who voted for it, then a second referendum would surely yield the same result, no? On the other hand, if you think there’s a genuine chance that Remain would win a second referendum, then you must be tacitly admitting that the Leave side was misled during the first referendum.
Exactly. UltraVires is basically arguing that a majority of the electorate were successfully tricked into starting to walk towards a cliff the first time around; and that we should heroically defend democratic values by insisting that they all continue to walk off the edge of the cliff hand in hand - even if the majority now don’t want to die.
Division! Clear the lobby!
Vote is underway…
306-325…VONC fails.
UNLOCK!
Are you going to watch the next debate - the one about car production in Solihull? It’s one for the Parliament TV purists. I admit the appeal is less than widespread.
I’m afraid I will miss that one. 
As a side question…is there an office called the “clark” of the House? They seem to be referring to a clerk. Is that the same thing or is that just a silly way that you all pronounce it?
It’s a silly way we all pronounce it.
To be clear, for a Yank not familiar with Parliamentary procedure: The vote of no confidence failing means that May retains power, correct?
Yes.
Unless Labour takes a firm position on being pro-referendum, it just seems like this indecisive clusterfuck will continue indefinitely. I actually hope that the EU refuses to countenance an extension without some decisive path forward, either general election or referendum or both. I think that they should insist that we get our shit together at least on a process for moving forward to a decision before they grant an extension; or just insist that our only other option is to rescind Article 50 altogether.
I’m wondering if there’s some way they could package an “extension” that would continue until some decisive agreement was made thereby letting the clusterfuck work for the status quo instead of the cliff’s edge. Does the wording of Article 50 specifically only allow calender extensions?
As a followup to this, what would be the consequence of a Tory MP voting in favor of the no confidence motion? Nothing at all or would he or she be assigned to the Falkland Islands Committee on Argentinian relations? Somewhere in between?
That’s not what I am saying. I am saying that Remain had a full and fair chance to argue its point during the first referendum. It failed. It is unfair to hold successive referenda until the “right” result is reached, and then the process is stopped after a single victory supported by the Government.
If the Government is going to do that, then the proposition should not be submitted to a referendum in the first place, which, as a political matter, I am not opposed to doing for the reasons Budget Player Cadet mentioned upthread.
Well, I think simply rescinding Article 50 would amount to that. It would mean that we remain in the EU and nothing changes. If we develop a coherent consensus plan for leaving at some time in the future, we can always re-start the process.
But surely Leavers will be even less happy with that than with a referendum.