Brexit matters

[MattRat]

Brexit only makes sense if it is treated as a religion not a policy.

That wasn't my point. My point was we have a bunch of different voices in the EU, none of which truly agree to with each other. Babel fell because of something like that. The main driving force right now is Germany and France, and even they don't always agree. But, what about what the other 24 nations want? Already Poland and Hungary and trying to go in a different direction, and I have a feeling it'll only get worse as time goes on.

 

[DerekC]

Brexit only makes sense if it is treated as a religion not a policy.

Yes - exactly. You have to believe in this thing called "sovereignty" and the goodness of the Great BoJo.

The "Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Bill" which repeals the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is about to be enacted with nobody much noticing. This reintroduces the Royal Prerogative to summon and dissolve parliaments, in effect giving back the Prime Minister the choice as to when to call an election. The Great Bojo has sneaked in a clause that says that a court "may not question" (a) the "exercise or purported exercise" of those powers, (b) "any decision or purported decision relating to those powers" or (c) "the limits or extent of those powers". So The Great BoJo can now make up the rules has he goes along without the Supreme Court being able to challenge him.

That strikes me as a very good example of "sovereignty" in action. In our weak, unwritten constitution it gives an unprincipled government with a large majority the power to adjust the law so that those in power can stay there, with no effective constraint. Now the EU, with the UK taking a leading role, devised rules which member states are suppose to comply with, which require separation of powers, in this case between the judiciary and the executive. You can see precisely why the Johnsonites wanted out. They wanted, and are now using, unconstrained power to change the system to their own advantage.

 

[MattRat]

Yes - exactly. You have to believe in this thing called "sovereignty" and the goodness of the Great BoJo.

The "Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Bill" which repeals the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is about to be enacted with nobody much noticing. This reintroduces the Royal Prerogative to summon and dissolve parliaments, in effect giving back the Prime Minister the choice as to when to call an election. The Great Bojo has sneaked in a clause that says that a court "may not question" (a) the "exercise or purported exercise" of those powers, (b) "any decision or purported decision relating to those powers" or (c) "the limits or extent of those powers". So The Great BoJo can now make up the rules has he goes along without the Supreme Court being able to challenge him.

That strikes me as a very good example of "sovereignty" in action. In our weak, unwritten constitution it gives an unprincipled government with a large majority the power to adjust the law so that those in power can stay there, with no effective constraint. Now the EU, with the UK taking a leading role, devised rules which member states are suppose to comply with, which require separation of powers, in this case between the judiciary and the executive. You can see precisely why the Johnsonites wanted out. They wanted, and are now using, unconstrained power to change the system to their own advantage.

I'm getting tired of baseless accusations. Brexiteers are pure evil to you, and Remainers are pure good, and there is no grey.

Your problem is that individuals, with their own thoughts and ideas, exist, and they don't fit neatly into your 2 sides narrative.

 

[DerekC]

I'm getting tired of baseless accusations. Brexiteers are pure evil to you, and Remainers are pure good, and there is no grey.

Your problem is that individuals, with their own thoughts and ideas, exist, and they don't fit neatly into your 2 sides narrative.

Not at all. I think people who voted for Brexit have been conned and we all have to live with the consequences, but the ones I know aren't in the least evil. However what we must all now do is keep on top of the tricks of the entitled, who are going to mould our country to suit themselves. Something that they have always done, of course, but the EU made it more difficult.

By the way, the new clause preventing the courts from intervening in the Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Act isn't a baseless accusation - it's a fact and will very shortly be the law. Do you think that's a good thing?

 

[duncanp]

Yes - exactly. You have to believe in this thing called "sovereignty" and the goodness of the Great BoJo.

The "Dissolution and Calling of Parliaments Bill" which repeals the Fixed Term Parliaments Act is about to be enacted with nobody much noticing. This reintroduces the Royal Prerogative to summon and dissolve parliaments, in effect giving back the Prime Minister the choice as to when to call an election. The Great Bojo has sneaked in a clause that says that a court "may not question" (a) the "exercise or purported exercise" of those powers, (b) "any decision or purported decision relating to those powers" or (c) "the limits or extent of those powers". So The Great BoJo can now make up the rules has he goes along without the Supreme Court being able to challenge him.

That strikes me as a very good example of "sovereignty" in action. In our weak, unwritten constitution it gives an unprincipled government with a large majority the power to adjust the law so that those in power can stay there, with no effective constraint. Now the EU, with the UK taking a leading role, devised rules which member states are suppose to comply with, which require separation of powers, in this case between the judiciary and the executive. You can see precisely why the Johnsonites wanted out. They wanted, and are now using, unconstrained power to change the system to their own advantage.

I don't think it should be within the prerogative of the courts to prevent the Prime Minister from using the powers in the Dissolution of Calling of Parliaments Bill to call an election.

The people of the UK would, quite rightly, have their say at any subsequent election if they thought that the Prime Minister was calling an election too early, or too soon after the last one, or was trying to "bury bad news".

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act didn't exactly work as envisaged anyway, with elections being called in 2017 and 2019 in advance of the dates scheduled according to the legislation.

The rule about having a general election at least once every 5 years is not being changed, and any Prime Minister who tried to extend his/her term in office without holding an election would not last very long.

 

[RT4038]

I don't think it should be within the prerogative of the courts to prevent the Prime Minister from using the powers in the Dissolution of Calling of Parliaments Bill to call an election.

The people of the UK would, quite rightly, have their say at any subsequent election if they thought that the Prime Minister was calling an election too early, or too soon after the last one, or was trying to "bury bad news".

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act didn't exactly work as envisaged anyway, with elections being called in 2017 and 2019 in advance of the dates scheduled according to the legislation.

The rule about having a general election at least once every 5 years is not being changed, and any Prime Minister who tried to extend his/her term in office without holding an election would not last very long.

I never really understood the point of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was anyway?

 

[duncanp]

I never really understood the point of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act was anyway?

It was introduced as part of the coalition agreement in 2010, and was designed to incentivise the coalition partners to provide a stable government, by not falling out and dissolving the coalition over political disagreements.

It worked for the first five years, with parliament going to a full term, but after the Conservatives gained a majority in 2015 it became less relevant.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm getting tired of baseless accusations. Brexiteers are pure evil to you, and Remainers are pure good, and there is no grey.

Your problem is that individuals, with their own thoughts and ideas, exist, and they don't fit neatly into your 2 sides narrative.

Can't answer the point made so just attack the person making it.

I don't think it should be within the prerogative of the courts to prevent the Prime Minister from using the powers in the Dissolution of Calling of Parliaments Bill to call an election.

The people of the UK would, quite rightly, have their say at any subsequent election if they thought that the Prime Minister was calling an election too early, or too soon after the last one, or was trying to "bury bad news".

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act didn't exactly work as envisaged anyway, with elections being called in 2017 and 2019 in advance of the dates scheduled according to the legislation.

The rule about having a general election at least once every 5 years is not being changed, and any Prime Minister who tried to extend his/her term in office without holding an election would not last very long.

This power makes it easier for the government to call an election at the time of their choosing, when they might be popular for other reasons so if some people vote against them because of this, then they probably win anyway.

They then have five years to do moreorless what they like before anyone can call them to account again.

 

[duncanp]

This power makes it easier for the government to call an election at the time of their choosing, when they might be popular for other reasons so if some people vote against them because of this, then they probably win anyway.

They then have five years to do moreorless what they like before anyone can call them to account again.

When to call an election is a matter of political choice, and is not something the courts should interfere in.

You could argue that parliament should have the final say over the date of an election, but if one party has a large majority it is just the same as if the Prime Minister made the decision unilaterally.

Prime Ministers sometimes make the wrong decision, as happened with James Callaghan in 1978 and Theresa May in 2017.

John Major hung on for as long as possible until the 1997 election, because he knew that the Conservatives were likely to lose. As did Gordon Brown in 2010.

And who can forget 1974, when there were two general elections within the same year.

As for "five years to do more or less what they like", that depends on the result of the election, and not whether it happens early or at the end of a fixed term parliament.

 

[DerekC]

I don't think it should be within the prerogative of the courts to prevent the Prime Minister from using the powers in the Dissolution of Calling of Parliaments Bill to call an election.

I agree, but I can't imagine a problem in that scenario. Remember that the Sovereign can dissolve or prorogue a Parliament at any time, a power which Mr Johnson misused to prevent it discussing and scrutinising something he didn't want it to. So now he will be able to turn Parliamentary discussion off, any time he wants to.

The people of the UK would, quite rightly, have their say at any subsequent election if they thought that the Prime Minister was calling an election too early, or too soon after the last one, or was trying to "bury bad news".

They might, but a PM might get it right and, for example, arrange a mini-boom just in time for the election knowing that a downturn was coming up.

The Fixed Term Parliaments Act didn't exactly work as envisaged anyway, with elections being called in 2017 and 2019 in advance of the dates scheduled according to the legislation.

As I understand it that's because the House of Commons voted for an election with the necessary two-thirds majority, as provided for in the Act.

The rule about having a general election at least once every 5 years is not being changed, and any Prime Minister who tried to extend his/her term in office without holding an election would not last very long.

True. However the FTP Act's specific requirement that Parliament must be dissolved and an election called if the government loses a vote of confidence and no alternative government is confirmed by the House of Commons within 14 days is also to be scrapped. So we will be back to the unwritten rule that Prime Ministers should resign if they lose a vote of confidence - and we know what Mr J does with unwritten rules.

 

[birchesgreen]

I've always thought the governing party being able to set their own election date was a nonsense to be honest, its a shame we're going back to it. It helps reinforce the impression that too many politicians consider government and parliament a game for their own benefit and not service to the country/people.

 

[AlterEgo]

When to call an election is a matter of political choice, and is not something the courts should interfere in.

Quite. Parliament is sovereign and we do not live in America, where the judiciary is considered an arm of the government.

We have an independent judiciary.

It is up to the monarch, under the express advice of the Prime Minister, to call an election, dissolve or recall parliament.

The death of the FTPA is a good thing.

 

[317 forever]

But you are happy with an 80 seat Tory majority based on only 43% of the vote?

I think this argument will just go in circles.

Incidentally, not that I want the BNP to have a say, but shutting down any opposing views has its own consequences.

After all, the fear of UKIP was enough to motivate the Tories to try and stem their influence and look how that turned out? Indeed, I think that we need moderate and sensible politics, but trying to shut down a particular stance isn't always the solution.

Indeed, all things considered, after the 2015 General Election Nigel Farage entered 10 Downing Street by the back door.

He even said subsequently that parties don't necessarily need Westminster representation to gain influence. It was David Cameron's fear of losing office through losing seats indirectly to Labour as a result of voter defections to UKIP that motivated him to offer the EU Referendum in the first place.

 

[AY1975]

Maybe we should look to the Swiss model then?

That said, the Swiss have all the data set out in front of them and when their is doubt as to whether the population was properly informed, then the votes can take place 2nd time with all the data presented in the open.

Yes, and AIUI countrywide referendums in Switzerland usually require a majority of votes both countrywide and in a majority of cantons. Similarly, in Australia constitutional changes require a majority of votes both countrywide and in a majority of states. This is known as a "double majority". If the Swiss or the Australian model had been followed for the Brexit referendum, at least three out of the four countries of the UK would have had to vote Leave for Brexit to happen.

Former SNP leader Alex Salmond (who was the party's foreign affairs spokesperson in 2015) tabled a Quadruple Lock amendment to the EU Referendum Bill. As the name suggests, this would have required all four countries of the UK to vote Leave to trigger a Brexit, effectively a form of double majority (albeit requiring all four instead of only three out of the four parts of the UK to vote for the change being offered), but was rejected by the Tories on the grounds that the referendum was supposed to be about what the UK as a whole wanted, not what each of the four separate countries of the UK wanted.

 

[jon0844]

You're right, it's much better to have a party who wins 43% of the vote and then gain an 80 seat majority.

On no planet that makes sense, apart from planet Britain.

Funny thing is, if Labour wins one day and also gets a huge majority in exactly the same way as the Tories did - you can be damn sure that the people defending the current system will demand change. It currently suits the Tories to maintain the status quo, just as they thought fixing terms at five years would be a good thing.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, and AIUI countrywide referendums in Switzerland usually require a majority of votes both countrywide and in a majority of cantons. Similarly, in Australia constitutional changes require a majority of votes both countrywide and in a majority of states. This is known as a "double majority". If the Swiss or the Australian model had been followed for the Brexit referendum, at least three out of the four countries of the UK would have had to vote Leave for Brexit to happen.

This might just be acceptable if the four countries were of roughly equal size, but they are not. Why should a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish vote count for more than an English vote on a constitutional (or any other) question?

Former SNP leader Alex Salmond (who was the party's foreign affairs spokesperson in 2015) tabled a Quadruple Lock amendment to the EU Referendum Bill. As the name suggests, this would have required all four countries of the UK to vote Leave to trigger a Brexit, effectively a form of double majority (albeit requiring all four instead of only three out of the four parts of the UK to vote for the change being offered), but was rejected by the Tories on the grounds that the referendum was supposed to be about what the UK as a whole wanted, not what each of the four separate countries of the UK wanted.

I am sure Alex Salmond would not have been suggesting this same principle for the constitutional question of Scotland leaving the Union.

If you're anti-Brexit, you will come up with as many schemes and reasons as possible as to how to gerrymander the system to try and prevent it happening (in hindsight). Likewise, if you are pro-Brexit you will do the opposite. That boat has sailed now.

 

[Enthusiast]

This might just be acceptable if the four countries were of roughly equal size, but they are not. Why should a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish vote count for more than an English vote on a constitutional (or any other) question?

Indeed. A strange version of democracy had it been allowed to happen. If this ludicrous arrangement had been allowed to prevail and you look at the actual figures from the referendum, 15.9m people in England and Wales (the majority in both countries) voted to leave but their decision would have been nullified by the 2.1m people in NI and Scotland who voted to remain. There cannot be any justification for Scottish and NI votes to carry eight times the weight of English and Welsh votes. Taken to its extreme, every voter in England & Wales (all 41 million) could have voted to leave but the result would still have been to remain. It's very unfortunate for voters in the smaller nations of the UK but they should remember they are the minor constituents (in the same way as London, Liverpool and Manchester are). After all, it's scarcely the fault of English voters that Mr Blair's ridiculous devolution arrangements have given them delusions of grandeur.

I don't see a justification for "super majorities" of any type in any elections. The majority should prevail, and that is 50%+1.

 

[dosxuk]

I don't see a justification for "super majorities" of any type in any elections. The majority should prevail, and that is 50%+1.

And yet, so many countries, and organisations, consider them a requirement - especially where an issue is contentious and a dramatic change from the status quo. We wouldn't still be arguing about Brexit in anywhere near the same manner if there had been a clear majority supporting leave - either in the form of 2/3rds of the vote being for, or 50%+1 of the eligible electorate.

Of course, had such a rule been in place we would be in a very different situation - one where a significant part of the population would feel hard done by that they didn't get to leave. And I think it would be very difficult to predict whether that would result in another vote (probably around now) after gaining more people to the leave side, or for that support to dwindle away - it could have gone either way. I would certainly have caused a ruckus in the EU parliament when they saw how much many of the UK population wanted to leave.

 

[Dent]

I don't see a justification for "super majorities" of any type in any elections. The majority should prevail, and that is 50%+1.

Where was anyone proposing "super majorities" in any elections? What was being discussed was for a referrendum on changing the status quo, not an election.

 

[najaB]

After all, it's scarcely the fault of English voters that Mr Blair's ridiculous devolution arrangements have given them delusions of grandeur.

And people wonder why there's such strong support for Scottish independence these days.

 

[The Ham]

Indeed. A strange version of democracy had it been allowed to happen. If this ludicrous arrangement had been allowed to prevail and you look at the actual figures from the referendum, 15.9m people in England and Wales (the majority in both countries) voted to leave but their decision would have been nullified by the 2.1m people in NI and Scotland who voted to remain. There cannot be any justification for Scottish and NI votes to carry eight times the weight of English and Welsh votes. Taken to its extreme, every voter in England & Wales (all 41 million) could have voted to leave but the result would still have been to remain. It's very unfortunate for voters in the smaller nations of the UK but they should remember they are the minor constituents (in the same way as London, Liverpool and Manchester are). After all, it's scarcely the fault of English voters that Mr Blair's ridiculous devolution arrangements have given them delusions of grandeur.

I don't see a justification for "super majorities" of any type in any elections. The majority should prevail, and that is 50%+1.

Of course it could have been fairer if it had been done by region, so London and the South East (both circa 9 million) would be overridden by Scotland (5.5 million) and Wales (3.2 million).

However Scotland would be comparable to the South West and Yorkshire & Humberside, whilst Wales is bigger than the North East.

Of course Northern Ireland would beat them all by being 1.85 million.

Although if you wanted to be truly fair you could go for an electoral college type system where each region gets a number of votes based on its overall size, so London may vary 9, likewise the South East, whilst Scotland gets 5 and Northern Ireland gets 2, with a total of about 68.

However, based on the vote and the assumption that each region would vote the way of 50%+1 of the voters then the total would be 16/68.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course it could have been fairer if it had been done by region, so London and the South East (both circa 9 million) would be overridden by Scotland (5.5 million) and Wales (3.2 million).

However Scotland would be comparable to the South West and Yorkshire & Humberside, whilst Wales is bigger than the North East.

Of course Northern Ireland would beat them all by being 1.85 million.

Although if you wanted to be truly fair you could go for an electoral college type system where each region gets a number of votes based on its overall size, so London may vary 9, likewise the South East, whilst Scotland gets 5 and Northern Ireland gets 2, with a total of about 68.

However, based on the vote and the assumption that each region would vote the way of 50%+1 of the voters then the total would be 16/68.

Regional "winner takes all" is pretty undemocratic - it's one reason Trump got elected in 2016 despite having far fewer votes than Clinton.

I think the answer for referendums is a presumption in favour of the status quo - such as requiring 50%+1 [edit: of the whole electorate] in favour of change, on the fairly reasonable assumption that anyone who can't be bothered to vote is content with things as they are. And if the nature of the change isn't clearly defined, as Brexit wasn't, then it either needs to be defined before the vote or put to a second referendum against the status quo once details are known.

 

[najaB]

I think the answer for referendums is a presumption in favour of the status quo - such as requiring 50%+1 in favour of change, on the fairly reasonable assumption that anyone who can't be bothered to vote is content with things as they are.

50% + 1 of the total electorate, not of those who vote.

 

[RT4038]

50% + 1 of the total electorate, not of those who vote.

That would seem reasonable.

 

[Enthusiast]

Where was anyone proposing "super majorities" in any elections? What was being discussed was for a referrendum on changing the status quo, not an election.

Point taken. Typed quickly. I was referring to referendums.

And people wonder why there's such strong support for Scottish independence these days.

Is there? The last poll I saw put the "yes" vote on 42%. But, of course, there's only one poll that counts.

Regional "winner takes all" is pretty undemocratic - it's one reason Trump got elected in 2016 despite having far fewer votes than Clinton.

I think the answer for referendums is a presumption in favour of the status quo - such as requiring 50%+1 in favour of change, on the fairly reasonable assumption that anyone who can't be bothered to vote is content with things as they are.

But that isn't a reasonable assumption. Many people didn't bother to vote in the referendum because they thought the result was a foregone conclusion. Those wanting to leave thought voting was a waste of their time and those wanting to remain didn't think their vote would be needed to carry the day. To presume that those who didn't vote were content with the status quo is not sound.

And yet, so many countries, and organisations, consider them a requirement - especially where an issue is contentious and a dramatic change from the status quo.

But why should the status quo enjoy the protection provided by a super-majority requirement? Why is the argument for that stronger than the "change" option enjoying something similar? I find it a little disturbing that (if, say a two thirds majority was required) 66% of those voting could vote for change and not get it.

 

[najaB]

Is there? The last poll I saw put the "yes" vote on 42%. But, of course, there's only one poll that counts.

Before the Russian invasion of Ukraine it had been pretty much neck and neck (within 5% or so) for about two years. Support for independence has been consistently higher than it was in the 2014 referendum.

 

[Bald Rick]

We wouldn't still be arguing about Brexit in anywhere near the same manner if there had been a clear majority supporting leave - either in the form of 2/3rds of the vote being for, or 50%+1 of the eligible electorate.

equally I don’t think we’d be arguing about it if the result was 50%+1 in favour of Remain. It ’s only because the result was close and leave that the arguments continue.

 

[edwin_m]

equally I don’t think we’d be arguing about it if the result was 50%+1 in favour of Remain. It ’s only because the result was close and leave that the arguments continue.

Farage did say he'd keep pushing if the result was 52:48 to remain.

 

[najaB]

It ’s only because the result was close and leave that the arguments continue.

I beg to differ. And a prominent pro-Brexit campaigner disagrees too:

Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

The Ukip leader speaks to the Mirror’s Associate Editor Kevin Maguire and warns that a '52-48 result would be unfinished business'

www.mirror.co.uk

The arguments continue because the result was close and also because "Brexit means Brexit" means precisely nothing. I know several people who were pro-Brexit but specifically wanted to remain in the Customs Union (and believed when they were told that we would).

 

[Bald Rick]

We’ll have to disagree.

NF would, of course, thrown a hissy fit, but Government would have been in no mood to have another referendum in that Parliament. And we would have just returned to the Pre 2015 position of NF (and a few others) making a lot of noise but most people ignoring him.