Brexit: Now What? Part II

[CapelDodger]

But given that Labour has announced they won't block it, I don't currently hold much hope.

Any hope is to be grasped at these days.

 

[McHrozni]

But given that Labour has announced they won't block it, I don't currently hold much hope.

They don't have to block it to prevent it. All they have to do is demand the Prime Minister comes up with a workable plan that won't cripple British economy. It's a very reasonable standard by any measure, one that a responsible parliament must necessary have.

There are only two possible scenarios from that point on - either Theresa May resigns and something maybe happens (or not), or else the whole thing is blocked until the next election.

McHrozni

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah okay, but I think that the supply of something this vital and this cheap should never be an issue.

McHrozni

Kind of like flu vaccines. Yet there it is.

 

[ceptimus]

Note that he said : if there is no plan. He did not say : not at all. And he is right. If there is no plan it makes no sense to abid to a result of referendum.

By that reasoning, any government could choose to ignore the result of any referendum by the simple method of not coming up with a plan to implement any result that they didn't like.

Not very democratic, is it?

 

[ceptimus]

Not according to your interpretation of democracy, apparently. And I really don't care.

I'm glad you're finally beginning to own up to your anti-democratic stance: 'democracy is fine, as long as I get what I want.'

 

[ceptimus]

Parliament is thus free to ignore the result should they so choose. Anyone is entitled to have an opinion on whether parliament should or should not do so.

Yes, and as long as we retain our democracy, voters are entitled to vote out of office any politicians that renege on their promises.

You, on the other hand are proposing ex nihilo that the referendum be converted from advisory to binding, that parliament be emasculated by not being allowed to vote on it and that holding any contrary opinion be banned.

No. I'm proposing that when parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a binary choice referendum, then it is the duty of parliament to implement the voter's choice. If parliament isn't prepared to implement both possible referendum choices then they should never have voted to hold the referendum in the first place.

How democratic of you.

Thank you. Unlike most posters in this thread, I'm prepared to stand up for democratic principles, even when the democratic vote goes against my own personal choice.

 

[Aepervius]

By that reasoning, any government could choose to ignore the result of any referendum by the simple method of not coming up with a plan to implement any result that they didn't like.

Not very democratic, is it?

It has nothing to do with democracy, because referendum in most countries are only advisory, not binding, and not part of the democratic election process. Swiss is for example a rare exception.

I get the feeling you have no idea what the democracy is in UK.

 

[ceptimus]

You get the wrong feeling. Try harder.

 

[Tolls]

By that reasoning, any government could choose to ignore the result of any referendum by the simple method of not coming up with a plan to implement any result that they didn't like.

Not very democratic, is it?

OK, let's try this again.
The yes/no vote was just that.
In the event of a "no" it did not give the government of the day carte blanche to do what they want. Parliament holds those keys.

If government does not provide a plan, or accept the restrictions on leaving imposed by Parliament, then that is not the fault of Parliament. Blame the numpties in charge of coming up with a plan.

 

[Craig B]

Yes, and as long as we retain our democracy, voters are entitled to vote out of office any politicians that renege on their promises.

They are. At least the voters in the constituencies represented by these politicians can do that. As far as the Tory government is concerned, it can't happen soon enough, but I am somewhat concerned that the situation now is a bit like that in the Weimar Republic in the election of 1930 when the Nazi Party increased its number of seats from 12 to 107. That was disgraceful behaviour by the voters, given the Nazis' known propensity for xenophobia. It is not fully excused even by the despair and confusion brought about by economic crisis. The Nazis then went on to usurp and destroy the Republic.

In the present situation, I would strive to ensure that Scotland isn't forced out of the EU. If England becomes independent, as I hope it will, then it will be entitled to join or leave whatever international bodies it wants. Prior to that, I will resist English voters' attempts to legislate for us here.

 

[catsmate]

Jeroen Dijsselbloem calls BoJo on his nonsense.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Yes, and as long as we retain our democracy, voters are entitled to vote out of office any politicians that renege on their promises.

And if that's the biggest threat then most MPs would be pretty untouchable. We're still waiting for the Vow to be upheld from the LAST referendum. How about we do that first before we move on to implementing another referendum?

http://www.snp.org/broken_promises_by_tories_and_no_campaign_since_indyref

 

[ceptimus]

Jeroen Dijsselbloem calls BoJo on his nonsense.

Some obviously pro-EU person that no one has ever heard of, says what everyone expects that such a person would say. Hardly news.

 

[Belz...]

So your answers are basically, 'Yes - parliament should ignore the result of a yes/no referendum that parliament voted overwhelmingly to hold.'

Not very democratic are you?

If the referendum was not binding, then it was just a polling of public opinion. Democracy has nothing to do with it.

 

[Klimax]

Britain probably leaving EU customs union, says Boris Johnson
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...y-leaving-eu-customs-union-says-boris-johnson


May is still not running a tight ship, it seems.



May is running a leaky ship, though, and not a happy one.

Published in HN. Mostly Eurosceptic and right wing newspaper. Its quality was going down for decade or so. (Used to be far better...) Unsurprising they were able to score interview with him.
Original:
http://archive.is/KODJk

 

[Aber]

I have never really understood the logic behind the theory that the airlines had to be privatized while the taxpayer then had to pay for a third runway for Heathrow.

Source for the Heathrow bit?

 

[Henri McPhee]

Source for the Heathrow bit?

This is from a Guardian article by Gwyn Topham 26 October 2016:

The true cost of Heathrow airport expansion to the taxpayer is not being divulged by the government, according to a Conservative former transport minister, who said ministers needed to “come clean” over the probable £5bn-£10bn public cost for road and rail links.

Tory MP Stephen Hammond raised his concerns as it emerged that Heathrow executives would get millions in bonuses for securing approval for the £17.6bn third runway scheme.

Hammond, a transport minister from 2012-14 when the airports commission was studying the scheme, said the government was misinforming the public by announcing that: “Expansion costs will be paid for by the private sector, not by the taxpayer.” The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, had also omitted this in his statement to the house, he said.

MP Stephen Hammond says Heathrow expansion costs will not fall to the private sector.

MP Stephen Hammond says Heathrow expansion costs will not fall to the private sector as ministers claim. Photograph: Julian Makey/Rex Features
“There will be a number of specific things we will be doing for Heathrow. The government and Heathrow need to come clean on what the cost to the taxpayer is going to be. No one would be surprised if it is £5bn, but we should just be honest about it,” Hammond added.

While the commission report estimated a £5bn bill for new roads and rail links, Transport for London put the potential cost as being as high as £18.4bn.

Heathrow said it had earmarked just £1bn, and that it only accepted direct responsibility for works to the M25, which the third runway would cross, and a few minor roads. The airport contends that it will be cutting traffic, despite adding up to 55 million passengers a year, and that revenues could offset the bill.

Zac Goldsmith: Heathrow decision ‘an outrage’ – video
Heathrow confirmed on Wednesday that executives would be paid bonuses, for securing a new runway, that would be expected to run into several million pounds. A spokeswoman said the bonuses would depend on also reaching targets on customer service and profitability.

The bonus scheme, devised by Heathrow’s chief executive, John Holland-Kaye, and approved by shareholders last year, will mean senior managers getting rewards based on net earnings, passenger service and strategic targets for a third runway .

Holland-Kaye earned £2.06m last year including bonuses, more than doubling his basic salary of £885,000. The new scheme, linked to expansion, did not pay out in 2015, “as the performance in respect of this scheme is so uncertain at this stage”, according to the airport’s annual report.

In an unusual move, a further payment will depend on employee satisfaction and engagement scores, known as the “mojo bonus”, after “internal motivational practice” that was developed by Holland-Kaye.

Nelson’s statue in central London wears a mask after Greenpeace action highlighting air pollution.

 

[Tolls]

Which clearly shows that the tax payer does not have to pay for the third runway at Heathrow.

The costs to the tax payer are collateral damage.

 

[MCel58]

Yes, and as long as we retain our democracy, voters are entitled to vote out of office any politicians that renege on their promises.


No. I'm proposing that when parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a binary choice referendum, then it is the duty of parliament to implement the voter's choice. If parliament isn't prepared to implement both possible referendum choices then they should never have voted to hold the referendum in the first place.


Thank you. Unlike most posters in this thread, I'm prepared to stand up for democratic principles, even when the democratic vote goes against my own personal choice.

The democracy you belong to is not a popular democracy but a parliamentary democracy. Either you accept the terms of that democracy or you are the one being undemocratic and asking for the rules of our democracy and our unwritten constitution to be set aside so that you can have your own way. If this goes ahead without a parliamentary vote then that is what will have happened.

 

[ceptimus]

I don't mind them having a parliamentary vote to rubber stamp the decision made by the voters. Parliament voted to hold a referendum and they are now morally, if not constitutionally, bound to accept the result.