Blair did that to himself when he volunteered to be Mr Bush’s poodle.
Going to war over non-existent WMDs when his master whistled is his legacy, and will taint everything he does in the public arena until he dies.
It *was *a good speech. The question is why nobody else in the half-assed Remain campaign was able to make such a speech either before or after the referendum.
The Supreme Court verdict turned out not to have earthshaking consequences given that there’s such a huge majority in the Commons for Brexit. The Lords could prove an irritant but they can easily be ignored as they have only delaying power.
I still think the legal challenge was worthwhile though as it established an important precedent.
And the Lords have turfed it back to the Commons!
Delaying power for a year. As a former Prime Minister observed, “A week is a long time in politics.”
From the article:
This may put a spanner in the works.
Well, wow. So much for only having delaying power.
heres what they need to do
1 have a binding yes or no public vote
2 go by each districts vote say the Sherwood forest district says yes then that would be the sherwoods rep vote if Nottingham said no thats what nottinghams rep would vote… that way parliaments vote is satisfied
I know that solution would be too easy but it would end it once and for all …
They can’t have a binding public vote. Parliament is always free to do as it decides. They already had as binding a referendum as they are going to get.
That’s only mostly true.
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 allowed for a public vote to decide whether some parts of the Act - about moving to a slightly more proportional voting system - would be implemented or not. The legislation was passed by parliament, and the yes/no decision was handed over to a public vote.
No doubt parliament could have passed another Act to negate the previous one, but that referendum was more binding than the Brexit one. Obviously a very much simpler issue, but still.
I was in the Chamber today watching this debate. It’s rare to see the Chamber so spirited and, well, raring for a scrap. I’m proud of the House of Lords tonight, whatever the end result.
Referenda have no binding effect in the UK. They are merely political and advisory.
It doesn’t really matter. What matters is whether it’s politically feasible to ignore the results of a referendum, and I would guess that most of the time it isn’t. You can’t tell people for one year : “you’re going to decide” and then just ignore the result of the vote.
It’s the same as offering a ref on a change in the law - it means nothing. Parliament is sovereign, etc. It’s why the whole idea of a negotiated exit without Parliamentary approval was a nonsense.
However, to deny the expressed will of the people when they have been expressly asked …
Well, if it’s Scotland it seems you keep asking until you get the answer you want.
It does matter becase if the negotiated exit plan is as bad as I suspect it will be, public opinion will change and Parliament can simply overrule the referendum result and then the government can fall or go to the country voluntarily.
Both the Scottish referendum and the Brexit referendum illustrate what hapoens when there is a material change of circumstances. With Scotland the understanding was tgat we would remain in he EU; that changed. With Brexit, the claims of the Brexiteers in the campaign may be shiwn to be false.
The approach of the lords seems to be to give the EU everything that it wants, and then negotiate for what we want afterwards.
Except there’s no mulligan: once notification is given under article 50 of the treaty, Britain is on the way out after two years.
There’s a Dawkins video going around at the moment that makes a point I’ve been pondering since the Scottish referendum, which is: why are these major, irrevocable decisions based on simple majority results in public votes? If 49.9% want one thing and 50.1% want another, can we really say the people have spoken? Hell, that’s within the margin of error. Ideally there ought to be a two-thirds approval requirement to change the status quo, and certainly nothing under 60%. A candidate or government that wins by a single vote will be up for a vote again within five years, but Brexit and devolution are forever (or as “forever” as anything in politics is).
Ironically that’s going to be the actual approach for the Commons and Government as well. The EU holds all the leverage here. We will be begging for an even halfway decent deal.
And that’s why the EU holds all the leverage: it doesn’t have to give any concessions at all unless it wants to, and it has an active incentive to hit the UK as hard as possible in order to send a message to any other countries thinking of leaving. Meanwhile, the UK will face a ticking clock to negotiate the best possible deal, a clock the EU can easily run down on any terms it doesn’t like, and the UK can’t decide to cancel the exit just because it doesn’t like the deal.
(In theory, of course, the EU could decide to let the UK stay in should the UK change its mind…but be prepared for a re-renegotiation of the current terms. Say goodbye to the rebate, for starters…)
I assume you mean the Commons. The Lords want residence for EU citizens reconfirmed, and a final meaningful vote for Parliament on the deal.
There is no evidence that Article 50 cannot be withdrawn with or without EU agreement. It may need to be decided by the ECJ, but if the UK did withdraw, a political fudge would be organised.