• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
I never felt more about what it must be like living in a right wing dictatorship than now.

Why?
Parliament tacitly consented to the prorogation and to Johnson continuing as Prime Minister

It was entirely free to suspend the prorogation or to remove him from office to avoid this but chose not to do so.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Why?
Parliament tacitly consented to the prorogation and to Johnson continuing as Prime Minister

It was entirely free to suspend the prorogation or to remove him from office to avoid this but chose not to do so.
Parliament has no power to suspend a prorogation. It is one of the Queen's privileges, which we now know she has no freedom to object to but must agree to what the PM asks.

Parliament could have voted no confidence in Johnson anytime but there still isn't enough unity around an alternative to guarantee that he wouldn't be back or trigger an election where he would have the right to choose the date. This power could be used to prevent Parliament intervening in the last few days before Brexit.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I never understand how people can want desire to see their own country fail.
It was entirely free to suspend the prorogation or to remove him from office to avoid this but chose not to do so.
As @edwin_m says, Parliament cannot stop prorogation, it is entirely at the PM's whim and fancy. And they didn't call for a vote of no confidence for the same reason that they didn't agree to an early General Election: there's nothing stopping the PM from dissolving Parliament and setting the date of the election as the 3rd of November.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
5,352
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
I have no doubt that they wanted it to change. I'm not so sure that they wanted it to fail. There is a difference.

Am in two minds about this. Sometimes things have to properly break before they can be fixed. As for the UK, I think it's already well on the way to being properly broken.
 

Cloud Strife

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2014
Messages
1,796
I have no doubt that they wanted it to change. I'm not so sure that they wanted it to fail. There is a difference.

The support for the DDR was never that high. One thing where they catastrophically failed was in trying to create a separate East German identity - something that paradoxically, the Federal Republic seems to be succeeding in doing.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Parliament has no power to suspend a prorogation. It is one of the Queen's privileges, which we now know she has no freedom to object to but must agree to what the PM asks.

Parliament has power to do anything it has the will to do.

I can strip royal prerogatives that it chooses to strip when it choses to strip them. In extremis it can even chose the monarch.


Parliament could have voted no confidence in Johnson anytime but there still isn't enough unity around an alternative to guarantee that he wouldn't be back or trigger an election where he would have the right to choose the date. This power could be used to prevent Parliament intervening in the last few days before Brexit.
Again, Parliament is supreme.
It could use primary legislation to do anything, including force an early election on whatever date it chose by amending the FTPA.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
As @edwin_m says, Parliament cannot stop prorogation, it is entirely at the PM's whim and fancy. And they didn't call for a vote of no confidence for the same reason that they didn't agree to an early General Election: there's nothing stopping the PM from dissolving Parliament and setting the date of the election as the 3rd of November.

Parliament can stop prorogation in extremis because parliament can do anything it wants.

But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Parliament can stop prorogation in extremis because parliament can do anything it wants.
Now that's a statement that would keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.
But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
And if the Prime Minister advises the Queen not to give the law royal assent?
 

Nagora

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2018
Messages
43
Am in two minds about this. Sometimes things have to properly break before they can be fixed.
Well, that's how I feel about the EU. Unfortunately the anti-democratic movement that supports it has done a good job of blocking anything and everything that would threaten its status quo and all we can really hope for at this point is for its financial mismanagement to cause it crash and burn under the weight of its own stupidity. Given that Christine Legard is a serious contender for head of the ECB that might not be far off - she's left Argentina in ruins with interest rats of something like 85% (not 0.85% - eighty five percent) and is apparently happy with her work. But then, no one with any power in the EU has to worry about performance reviews. As long as they look after their mates, their mates will look after them.

But, yes. Let's remain by all means.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
And if the Prime Minister advises the Queen not to give the law royal assent?
If the PM still had actual power to refuse royal assent on such a bill, which does not affect the Royal Prerogative, he would have advised the Queen to refuse consent on the anti no-deal bill.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
If the PM still had actual power to refuse royal assent on such a bill, which does not affect the Royal Prerogative, he would have advised the Queen to refuse consent on the anti no-deal bill.
This is so far into constitutional theory that it's anyone's guess as to what would happen. Because remember that the PM can only advise the monarch, she doesn't have to follow that advice.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Parliament can stop prorogation in extremis because parliament can do anything it wants.

But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
Either is possible in theory but has to get through all stages in both houses of Parliament. Changing prorogation in particular is a major constitutional change raising all sorts of questions about the role of the monarch, which should really be discussed in depth - complex legislation passed in a hurry usually ends up with loopholes as the FTPA has shown. It's a much bigger deal than taking control of business for a day. Without that change, Boris could use prorogation to curtail Parliament prior to any election date that Parliament tried to set.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Parliament has power to do anything it has the will to do.
Now that's a statement that would keep constitutional lawyers busy for years.

But most likely it could hold a general election on whatever date it chooses by amending the FTPA such that an election should occur on a given date.
And if the Prime Minister advises the Queen not to give the law royal assent?

The method by which Parliament can stop a Prime Minister doing they don't want him to do is to give its support/confidence to a different individual. That is, a motion of no confidence in the existing Government, followed by a motion of confidence in another Government (and Prime Minister). Doing that takes time, however, and in the meantime the existing Prime Minister still holds their prerogative powers.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
The method by which Parliament can stop a Prime Minister doing they don't want him to do is to give its support/confidence to a different individual. That is, a motion of no confidence in the existing Government, followed by a motion of confidence in another Government (and Prime Minister). Doing that takes time, however, and in the meantime the existing Prime Minister still holds their prerogative powers.
That process only takes time because Parliament permits it to take time.
If they actually wanted Boris gone he could be gone in a matter of hours.

Either is possible in theory but has to get through all stages in both houses of Parliament. Changing prorogation in particular is a major constitutional change raising all sorts of questions about the role of the monarch, which should really be discussed in depth - complex legislation passed in a hurry usually ends up with loopholes as the FTPA has shown. It's a much bigger deal than taking control of business for a day. Without that change, Boris could use prorogation to curtail Parliament prior to any election date that Parliament tried to set.
I'm not sure passing a bill that provides that notwithstanding the FTPA, an election will be held on date x is really a major constitutional change with lasting impacts.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
That process only takes time because Parliament permits it to take time.
If they actually wanted Boris gone he could be gone in a matter of hours.
I'm not sure how much of parliamentary procedure is a matter of convention v actually required. But a vote of no confidence takes, if memory serves, at least two days. In which time the PM remains PM and can prorogue parliament.
 

Nagora

Member
Joined
17 Oct 2018
Messages
43
Ultimately, might makes right. Anyone can do whatever they like if they have enough force. That might be the government with the army (or the monarch, if it came to that), or the public with civil unrest. Once you get into conversations about obeying the constitution then you're only a few steps away from this reality. Once the riots start, what silly bills "parliament" passes become a lot less important.

I feel this is one thing that every side in the Brexit debacle has largely ignored. There is a real chance of civil unrest in Scotland, Northern Ireland (indeed, the IRA have already fired more than one warning shot), and even parts of England (Wales seems fairly quiet). Instead of finding a compromise, the Remainers in Parliament have refused to accept the deal on offer from the EU, no deal, or basically anything other than complete capitulation to their demand that the referendum decision be ignored. The result is polarisation and further entrenchment on the Leave side; the story of modern life in a nutshell - pick a side, check into your local echo-chamber, never discuss the actual issues, and never ever give an inch. And, of course, blame the other side for everything. But if you ask the people what they want and then say they can't have it under any circumstance, it's you who lit the fuse.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Instead of finding a compromise, the Remainers in Parliament have refused to accept the deal on offer from the EU, no deal, or basically anything other than complete capitulation to their demand that the referendum decision be ignored.
While I've no doubt it felt good to type that statement, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to actual fact. Might I remind you that we were six votes away from leaving the EU in the April round of voting and it was hard-core Brexiteers who prevented it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47779783
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Ultimately, might makes right. Anyone can do whatever they like if they have enough force. That might be the government with the army (or the monarch, if it came to that), or the public with civil unrest. Once you get into conversations about obeying the constitution then you're only a few steps away from this reality. Once the riots start, what silly bills "parliament" passes become a lot less important.

I feel this is one thing that every side in the Brexit debacle has largely ignored. There is a real chance of civil unrest in Scotland, Northern Ireland (indeed, the IRA have already fired more than one warning shot), and even parts of England (Wales seems fairly quiet). Instead of finding a compromise, the Remainers in Parliament have refused to accept the deal on offer from the EU, no deal, or basically anything other than complete capitulation to their demand that the referendum decision be ignored. The result is polarisation and further entrenchment on the Leave side; the story of modern life in a nutshell - pick a side, check into your local echo-chamber, never discuss the actual issues, and never ever give an inch. And, of course, blame the other side for everything. But if you ask the people what they want and then say they can't have it under any circumstance, it's you who lit the fuse.

But ask "the people" what they expected from Brexit, and you'll get at least a dozen different answers, hence MPs, both Leave & Remain, not being able to agree on a deal. There was no mandate for how & when we left, just that we invoked A50. It is clear that everyone holds some responsibility for this mess, remainers for not getting their message across well enough, leavers for not being honest enough about the complexity and multitude of scenarios surrounding Brexit, inbetweeners for not demanding a more in depth referendum & debate thereafter.

All of this mess, all of it comes from a completely naive and unfocused approach to Brexit, and once a result was in way too little effort on the part of those wanting and/or facilitating it. And right now there is likely to be no easy way out of this mess, so everyone will have to compromise, work harder and wait to untangle this cluster-you-know-what. That can only start by pressing the reset button on October 14th, recasting the referendum with a two part one asking if people still want to leave, then asking what scenario(s) they prefer should a leave vote be returned again. Then and only then will the government, whatever that ends up looking like, have a true mandate. And if you think otherwise, you are doing yourself a disservice.
 

thejuggler

Member
Joined
8 Jan 2016
Messages
1,186
Looks like Dom Cummings can't let go of his illegal data collection and mining activity used for te Brexit vote.

Government have ordered all data from .gov.uk website to be gathered centrally for 'analysis'.

All that personal data available for more Facebook lies.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
Maybe it's the wrong time to introduce a Referendum Act that makes it clearer that in order to make any changes certain criteria must be met.

After our current experience there must be at least 55% in favour of the change and at least 50% of the electorate must have voted for it. No new referendum on the same subject for at least 5 years.

We've very effectively proved that a simple referendum t,hat could have been decided by 1 vote on a very low turnout, was not a good way to resolve an impasse in Parliament.
 

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,107
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
Ultimately, might makes right. Anyone can do whatever they like if they have enough force. That might be the government with the army (or the monarch, if it came to that), or the public with civil unrest. Once you get into conversations about obeying the constitution then you're only a few steps away from this reality. Once the riots start, what silly bills "parliament" passes become a lot less important …. but if you ask the people what they want and then say they can't have it under any circumstance, it's you who lit the fuse.

It strikes me that this is the ultra-Brexiteer version of "Project Fear" - only it's much worse because it's a threat. Give us what we say the people voted for or we will encourage civil unrest, or worse. Parliament is not saying Brexit can't happen - it's trying to avoid Brexit turning into a national catastrophe. I voted remain but was prepared to accept the referendum result on the basis that we could work out the best deal for the country going forward. The longer it goes on and the more obvious it becomes that the right wing sees Brexit as an opportunity to transform England (because the rest of the UK won't join the party) into a miniature version of Trump's USA, the more difficult it gets to avoid joining the second referendum call.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Dictators don't offer general elections.

Actually, they often do. They just manipulate them to make sure they win. Look for example at Mugabe, Putin or Maduro.

Having said that, I don't think Boris, unprincipled and dangerous though he is, merits the description of 'dictator' based on his actions so far.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top