Bollocks to Brexit

[LowlifeDes]

Sooo, will she lose by 100+ votes or less?

Almost certainly

[Sonic Budgie]

I think she'll win, landslide.

[Dunckel]

More than 100.

I have read in a couple of places that the EU has said that it is happy to extend Article 50 to July in order to accomodate a second referendum. That also seems to be where the momentum lies within Parliament and many MPs have already buried May's deal and are looking at what needs to be done next. We have an interesting few days ahead.

[Regulator]

A lot will ride on what Bercow does in relation to the various amendments that have been tabled. It's clear the Brexiteers in Parliament and elsewhere have let the attack dogs loose on him, as they're scared he's forcing the executive to be accountable to the Commons.

[Sonic Budgie]

A lot will ride on what Bercow does in relation to the various amendments that have been tabled. It's clear the Brexiteers in Parliament and elsewhere have let the attack dogs loose on him, as they're scared he's forcing the executive to be accountable to the Commons.

The traitor.

[LowlifeDes]

A lot will ride on what Bercow does in relation to the various amendments that have been tabled. It's clear the Brexiteers in Parliament and elsewhere have let the attack dogs loose on him, as they're scared he's forcing the executive to be accountable to the Commons.

This is the most disappointing thing about the whole affair. One thing that people can reasonably argue with some confidence the referendum result gave a mandate for is giving more control to our parliament. Our MPs have spent the intervening period washing their hands of any responsibility when they needed to be engaging in a grown up conversation with their constituents about exactly what we wanted, and what is possible.

[Greg]

The only way any of this mess will get a parliamentary majority is for a heavily amended withdrawal bill, which the EU wont accept.

They know this, we know this, so why don't they stop this stupid pantomime just and get on with a 2nd ref?

[Dunckel]

The only way any of this mess will get a parliamentary majority is for a heavily amended withdrawal bill, which the EU wont accept.

They know this, we know this, so why don't they stop this stupid pantomime just and get on with a 2nd ref?

Because they have to let May fail, then they can all crow that it would have been different if they were in charge. Expect Boris to suddenly reappear tomorrow, perhaps even having had a flash of realisation that Brexit can not be delivered from the position we are in, so with a heavy heart now has to conceed that remaining would be the best option. Further Britain would need someone strong, like him to lead us in getting a new deal within the EU.

[Regulator]

Every MP should be made to (re)read Edmund Burke's address to the electors of Bristol:

I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.

[LowlifeDes]

From my MP



"Thank you for contacting me asking that I vote against the Withdrawal Agreement tonight in order to bring about a second referendum.

I voted Remain in the 2016 Referendum myself, on the basis that the economic benefits of staying in the EU outweighed the disadvantages and constraints of membership. But the majority of our fellow citizens casting a vote in June 2016 voted a different way – by a margin of around 17.4 million to 16 million. At the 2017 General Election, both main parties (Conservative and Labour) had in their respective manifestos a clear commitment to respect the result of the Referendum by leaving the EU:
Labour’s manifesto at page 24 said, “Labour accepts the referendum result”
The Conservative manifesto at page 35 said, “Following the historic referendum on 23rd June 2016, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union”

These two parties between them got 82% of the vote in 2017, and 580 out of 650 MPs.
The 2016 Referendum result combined with the 2017 General Election result is the democratic basis for leaving the EU. The Parliamentary basis for leaving is that the vast majority of MPs voted to hold the referendum in the first place (by 544 to 53), on the explicit understanding that the result would be respected, and in Spring 2017 the vast majority of MPs, both Labour and Conservative, voted to trigger Article 50 (by 498 to 114 at Second Reading).

On this basis, I believe that it is incumbent on MPs to do their level best to deliver BREXIT in a way that protects our economic interests. I believe that the Withdrawal Agreement and the accompanying Political Declaration laying the foundations for the future trading arrangements do this. The Political Declaration contemplates a future customs arrangement with the EU to ensure minimal friction at the border, and a deep free trade agreement which will include zero tariffs for goods and equivalence on financial services. If the Withdrawal Agreement gets voted down, there is a chance (although by no means the certainty) that a No Deal exit will follow. For these reasons, I will be voting in favour of the Withdrawal Agreement this evening.

The basis of many calls for a second referendum is that some people disagree with the 2016 Referendum result and want to overturn it. This is not an appropriate reason for holding a second Referendum in my view. If we held a second referendum and it produced a narrow result to Remain, would we then hold a third referendum later? However, it strikes me that there are three more credible arguments which are being advanced for a second Referendum which deserve proper consideration.

The first argument is that voters in June 2016 did not have the full information available to them and did not have the benefit of the knowledge which they now have (for example, the fact that the exit negotiations have in practice been more difficult than Leave campaigners suggested). I am not hugely persuaded by this argument. The Remain campaign (of which I was a part, and which outspent the Leave campaign) was very clear about the risks and challenges of leaving. The Government of the day printed a leaflet and sent it to every household making this point. David Cameron and George Osborne even suggested that an emergency budget would be needed if we voted to Leave, in order to underline the likely economic consequences. The Treasury published dire forecasts suggested everyone would be a lot worse off if we left the EU. Moreover, the question was simply do we leave or remain. There was no qualification or specificity about the kind of exit (for example, the question was not “leave, provided that we can get a good trade deal”). The country simply voted to leave, whatever that entailed.

The second argument advanced is that people have changed their minds since 2016. In order to disregard the 2016 result, I would need to see clear and overwhelming evidence that this had happened. Polling has moved around a bit, but there is certainly no clear evidence of a material sea-change in public opinion at present.

The third and most persuasive argument is that if Parliament cannot agree on a way forward the only option left is to put the matter back to the people. But at present, we have not exhausted the Parliamentary process. We will have a vote on the Government’s proposed exit arrangements this evening. If the deal does not pass tonight, we will have to see if the EU makes any changes or if Parliament is able to agree some other sensible way forward. If Parliament is unable to agree on a sensible set of arrangements which the EU will also agree to, then it may be that there is no alternative but to put the matter back to the people. It is an open question as to whether, if this happened, it would include an option to Remain or simply offer a choice between the various ways in which we might leave. However, this is not a matter which has yet arisen as Parliament has not yet reached an impasse.

So in summary, I will support the Withdrawal Agreement this evening but will keep the matter under constant review if both Parliament and the EU is unable to agree a sensible way forward.

Kind regards,"


I think that sums up as, I know it is wrong but I am a loyal poodle and I can rely on others putting me into a position where I can follow my conscience later.

[Dunckel]

I note that nobody on the news is speculating on what May will do if the vote is lost. I wonder if it ever crossed her mind to walk away tomorrow morning and leave it to somebody else to sort it.

[Rocky]

100+

[Joan]

I note that nobody on the news is speculating on what May will do if the vote is lost. I wonder if it ever crossed her mind to walk away tomorrow morning and leave it to somebody else to sort it.

"Cameroning." What should she hum?

[LowlifeDes]

I doubt that she would just walk away. She might call a vote of no confidence herself though.

[Dunckel]

I doubt that she would just walk away. She might call a vote of no confidence herself though.

That's a possibility, her opportunities for controlling when she leaves Downing Street will reduce the longer she tries to hold on.