International Brexit Discussion v9: The Last Extension

[Arkain2K]

This is not true. I even posted above how a referendum can be binding on a Parliamentary sovereign system . The referendum can be put in place by an Act of Parliament with a clause along the lines of "This Act shall come into effect if passed by a referendum" embedded into the legislation.

Is there really any precedent for this Parliamental self-binding in the U.K?

As far as I know, the idea that the current Parliament can make an Act binding in a way that any future Parliament cannot undo is a direct violation of the second pillar of the British Parliamental Sovereignty:

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarized in three points:

• Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
• No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
• A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

If you can present a past referendum in the U.K where Parliament voluntarily limiting their own Crown-given rights to enforce or disregard it later as they see fit (rather than make it a point to emphasize that it's advisory only), then I'll conceed that your suggestion could be a possibility.

Personally, I highly doubt that self-shackling will ever happen voluntarily though, not unless Parliament is forced to comply with the votes by an actual Constitution that reigns above all.

Then again, traditions and norms are flying out the windows left and right, and if Boris really go through with his pledge to ignore the laws passed by Parliament, then even stranger precendent-setters might happen down the road...But still, the idea that these power-hungry politicians would limit their own supremacy just like that is as crazy as it gets.

 

[7437]

Is there really any precedent for this Parliamental self-binding in the U.K?

The current Parliamanet making an Act binding in a way that any future Parliament cannot undo is a direct violation of the second pillar of the British Parliamental Sovereignty:

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarized in three points:

• Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
• No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
• A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

Parliment would have to pass something reversing it, as opposed to simply doing nothing.

 

[aitkenmike]

Is there really any precedent for this Parliamental self-binding in the U.K?

As far as I know, the idea that the current Parliament can make an Act binding in a way that any future Parliament cannot undo is a direct violation of the second pillar of the British Parliamental Sovereignty:

The doctrine of parliamentary supremacy may be summarized in three points:

• Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
• No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
• A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.

If you can present a past referendum in the U.K where Parliament voluntarily limiting their own Crown-given rights to enforce or disregard it later as they see fit (rather than make it a point to emphasize that it's advisory only), then I'll conceed that your suggestion could be a possibility.

Personally, I highly doubt that self-shackling will ever happen voluntarily though, not unless Parliament is forced to comply with the votes by an actual Constitution that reigns above all.

Then again, traditions and norms are flying out the windows left and right, and if Boris really go through with his pledge to ignore the laws passed by Parliament, then even stranger precendent-setters might happen down the road...But still, the idea that these power-hungry politicians would limit their own supremacy just like that is as crazy as it gets.

Of course parliament can over rule a law once it has been put in place, but I didn't think that was what we were arguing about. Including the referendum in the Act would make the referendum self-executing, not self binding. And if you did want it binding, how long should a referendum bind future parliaments?

If your issue with Parliamentary Sovereignty is the ability to change a law once enacted, doesn't every legislative chamber work that way? Can the US House of Reps enact legislation preventing future legislatures from overturning an Act? Forgive me if i'm wrong, but I would imagine not, and if it does, that seems like a terrible way of running things and i'd stick with the issues Parliamentary Sovereignty creates rather than have the issues that could come with.

 

[Arkain2K]

Parliment would have to pass something reversing it, as opposed to simply doing nothing.

Interesting enough, Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems are now going the nuclear route and pledge to revoke Article 50 if they win the general election, effectively pretends that the referendum never happened, and setting the precedent that British referendum votes from here on out isn't worth the ballot they're printed on.

Now I highly doubts they would win, but that announced platform is magnitudes more undemocratic than anything we have seen thus far in this circus.


Lib Dems pledge to cancel Brexit if they win general election
16 September 2019

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to cancel Brexit if they come to power at the next general election.

Members voted for the new policy at their party conference in Bournemouth by an overwhelming majority.

Previously, the party has backed another referendum or "People's Vote", saying they would campaign to Remain.

After the vote, their leader Jo Swinson, said: "We will do all we can to fight for our place in Europe, and to stop Brexit altogether."

The commitment only comes into force if the party wins the election as a majority government.

Ms Swinson also confirmed that before an election is called, the Lib Dems would continue to work with other opposition parties to campaign for a further referendum, and to prevent a "dangerous" no-deal Brexit.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We still want to have a People's Vote. We've been arguing for that for the last three-and-a-half years - [to put] the Brexit deal to the public in a referendum.

"[But] when we have an election, if we haven't had a People's Vote, people will be looking to resolve the issue of Brexit, and there are so many people in this country who are so sick of hearing about it.

"They want to get on with their lives and want the government to get on with making their lives better."

In his first speech to conference as a Lib Dem MP, Chuka Umunna - who left Labour over its Brexit stance - said it would give the party a "clear, unequivocal position".

He said: "This [policy] will stop this national embarrassment and enable us to focus on the things that really matter."

But fellow Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb said the policy saw his party "playing with fire".

He told the Today programme that the polarisation between Leave and Remain was "incredibly dangerous", adding: "If we take this to the very limit in a situation where one side is vanquished entirely, I think there's a real danger that we break the social contract in our country.

"And I think that we all have a responsibility of reuniting the country in a common endeavour."

In Brexit terms, revoking Article 50 could be considered the nuclear option, stopping dead the process of leaving the EU.

It's just what the Liberal Democrats want and now they've adopted a policy to do exactly that - if they win a general election.

But the most important word in the last sentence is "if".

If they don't find themselves in government they will, we can assume, revert to campaigning for a further referendum as the best way to reverse the result of the last one.

So, this policy allows the party to send a message to voters that they are as opposed to Brexit as it's possible to be.

But it's not without risk for a party with the word "democrat" in its name to promise to overturn the result of a referendum without putting that question to the electorate again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-49706643

 

[7437]

Interesting enough, Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems are now going the nuclear route and pledge to revoke Article 50 if they win the general election, effectively pretends that the referendum never happened, and setting the precedent that British referendum votes from here on out isn't worth the ballot they're printed on.

Now I highly doubts they would win, but that announced platform is magnitudes more undemocratic than anything we have seen thus far in this circus.


Lib Dems pledge to cancel Brexit if they win general election
16 September 2019

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to cancel Brexit if they come to power at the next general election.

Members voted for the new policy at their party conference in Bournemouth by an overwhelming majority.

Previously, the party has backed another referendum or "People's Vote", saying they would campaign to Remain.

After the vote, their leader Jo Swinson, said: "We will do all we can to fight for our place in Europe, and to stop Brexit altogether."

The commitment only comes into force if the party wins the election as a majority government.

Ms Swinson also confirmed that before an election is called, the Lib Dems would continue to work with other opposition parties to campaign for a further referendum, and to prevent a "dangerous" no-deal Brexit.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We still want to have a People's Vote. We've been arguing for that for the last three-and-a-half years - [to put] the Brexit deal to the public in a referendum.

"[But] when we have an election, if we haven't had a People's Vote, people will be looking to resolve the issue of Brexit, and there are so many people in this country who are so sick of hearing about it.

"They want to get on with their lives and want the government to get on with making their lives better."

In his first speech to conference as a Lib Dem MP, Chuka Umunna - who left Labour over its Brexit stance - said it would give the party a "clear, unequivocal position".

He said: "This [policy] will stop this national embarrassment and enable us to focus on the things that really matter."

But fellow Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb said the policy saw his party "playing with fire".

He told the Today programme that the polarisation between Leave and Remain was "incredibly dangerous", adding: "If we take this to the very limit in a situation where one side is vanquished entirely, I think there's a real danger that we break the social contract in our country.

"And I think that we all have a responsibility of reuniting the country in a common endeavour."

In Brexit terms, revoking Article 50 could be considered the nuclear option, stopping dead the process of leaving the EU.

It's just what the Liberal Democrats want and now they've adopted a policy to do exactly that - if they win a general election.

But the most important word in the last sentence is "if".

If they don't find themselves in government they will, we can assume, revert to campaigning for a further referendum as the best way to reverse the result of the last one.

So, this policy allows the party to send a message to voters that they are as opposed to Brexit as it's possible to be.

But it's not without risk for a party with the word "democrat" in its name to promise to overturn the result of a referendum without putting that question to the electorate again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-49706643

I think it's fair to say that a vote for them is the same as a vote against Brexit at this point.

I don't view a referendum as inherently more valulable than an election. If they elect anti Brexit people, then the people dont want Brexit.

 

[Arkain2K]

Of course parliament can over rule a law once it has been put in place, but I didn't think that was what we were arguing about. Including the referendum in the Act would make the referendum self-executing, not self binding. And if you did want it binding, how long should a referendum bind future parliaments?

For starter, I don't know how the idea of a self-executing Brexit would work, for it would have to include every permutation of every combination of every possible Brexit negotiation angle, and furthermore, Parliament insists that they need to have the final vote in any Brexit deal, so there's still going to be a brawl at the end.

I don't look at the Brexit "binding" process with time constraints, because there isn't one, but only in term of execution and completion. Once Brexit is completed, then I think Parliament is free to immediately enact another Act to authorize another referendum to see if most of the country wants to rejoin the E.U.

I know plenty people in the forum don't want to see that happen, and they would much rather see another referendum replacing the result of the first one, then there's a chance they wouldn't have to deal with the fallout in the interim, but even they will have to admit that getting out before trying to get back in literally is the only way that would not violates anyone's democratic rights.

That's why the idea of holding another Brexit referendum before Brexit ever happened failed so hard when it was put to a vote in parliament, and to an American like me, that's akin to calling for another Presidential vote because the result didn't go your way, the official swearing-in ceremony is being repeatedly delayed even though the first election is widely accepted as legitimate, and there's talks about cancelling the vote result all tovether with the rationale that politicians lies and the people didn't really know what they voted for.

For the record, I would say the same thing had the Scottish Independence Referendum passed and then half of the country try to delay and derail the process before it's ever completed (and yes, that was also filled with scaremongering and creative campaigning materials as well, though the lies were obviously nowhere nearly as bad as Brexit).

 

[aitkenmike]

Interesting enough, Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems are now going the nuclear route and pledge to revoke Article 50 if they win the general election, effectively pretends that the referendum never happened, and setting the precedent that British referendum votes from here on out isn't worth the ballot they're printed on.

Now I highly doubts they would win, but that announced platform is magnitudes more undemocratic than anything we have seen thus far in this circus.

If the Lib Dems won a majority in a General Election (they won't), if would be perfectly clear that the majority of the UK has voted to remain, given that was their platform going into the election. There would be absolutely nothing undemocratic about revoking at that point.

Similarly, if, for whatever reason a 2nd referendum with remain won, but a year or two later the Brexit Party won an absolute majority in an election with a No Deal leave manifesto, there would be nothing undemocratic about implementing that.

I don't understand why you are so fixated on democracy beginning and ending with the referendum (non-binding or not)

 

[aitkenmike]

For starter, I don't know how the idea of a self-executing Brexit would work, for it would have to include every permutation of every combination of every possible Brexit negotiation angle, and furthermore, Parliament insists that they need to have the final vote in any Brexit deal, so there's still going to be a brawl at the end.

There would be a deal negotiated prior to leaving (or failing that, no deal would be the referendum option), that would be then put to the public for approval via the referendum. And yes, that would be a gigantic waste of money should remain be the outcome, but it is the only way for a truly informed vote to have happened, as, like you say, people in this case voted on "every permutation of every combination of every possible Brexit negotiation angle".

And no, Parliament wouldn't have the final vote, that is the point of the self-executing referendum.

 

[aitkenmike]

That's why the idea of holding another Brexit referendum before Brexit ever happened failed so hard when it was put to a vote in parliament, and to an American like me, that's akin to calling for another Presidential vote because the result didn't go your way, the official swearing-in ceremony is being repeatedly delayed even though the first election is widely accepted as legitimate, and there's talks about cancelling the vote result all tovether with the rationale that politicians lies and the people didn't really know what they voted for.

I can sort of see where you are coming from, but the difference is, people didn't vote here for a specific thing that could easily be enacted. It isn't really in equatable to a general election, and I don't think the analogy holds.

 

[Arkain2K]

I don't understand why you are so fixated on democracy beginning and ending with the referendum (non-binding or not)

I have said many times that I'm okay with however this pans out.

I just like to point out to our angry British friends that whichever "democratic" precedent they're going to set here, its ramifications will remains in their institution long after we moved on from this circus, since that's pretty much how their unwritten "Constitution" is cobbled together: traditions and precedents.

Once they have determined something to be "the will of the people" and the "the rule of law" from this mess, they best be prepared to deal with the same rationale down the road, even when the table turns.

 

[Billy no mates]

Surely you're not suggesting that a much-needed Constitutional reform now will be met with bloodshed?

At this point, I think the entire country would appreciate some Constitutional clarity as to what the hell is the "rule of law", and which law supercedes another, when there there are no shortage of contradicting laws going around, and the Supreme Court is powerless to do anything about it.

No I saying pure people power alone is rarely enough to affect change on its own however those events might be dressed up at the time or afterwards , it's clear Parliament retains primacy .

 

[Billy no mates]

So now the leftist Labour Party leader says the UK is better off outside of the EU.

So why was he trying to stop brexit?

He's not really trying to stop it which is probably why he was trying to oust the last vaguely credible member of the Labour front bench Tom Watson who is at odds with Corbyns thinking on the matter, he just wants to be able to blame the Torys for the pain and hardship that will accompany it that's all .

 

[7437]

Once they have determined something to be "the will of the people" and the "the rule of law" from this mess, they best be prepared to deal with the same rationale down the road, even when the table turns.

That's the thing though. The will of the people and the rule of law are not the same thing.

People said they wanted Brexit, and the law says Parliment gets to choose.

The obvious solution is that people would vote out parliment if they dont follow the will of the people. That hasnt happened though.

 

[whougonnacall]

See the link I provided above in regards to the democratic abomination that is Parliamental Sovereignty, a relic only recognized by Britain and a handful of their former colonies.

Referendums in the U.K CAN'T legally be binding, not without a Constitutional reform.

Under the dinosaur that is the "Westminster system", Parliament has the final say in telling the voters and the Supreme Court what they can and can't do, not the reverse. That's why referendum votes are legally "advisory" at best. If the government decide to trash the result, it's completely within their power, and there's nothing anyone can do about it, if they chose to go along with the façade that passes as an "unwritten Constitution" on the British isle.

Add that to the fact that the House of Lords is completely unelected and you could see why non-Brits in this thread gets a chuckle whenever abstract arts like"Democracy" is being thrown around in this debate.

TL;DR: Get yourself a properly written and codified Constitution. You gonna need it now that people finally realizes what passes as the "rule of law" these days in Britain.

Hey i agree the whole lack of constitution allows 'officals secrets act' to be thrown potentialy at anything embarassing for mps....its a joke

 

[KnightTemplar]

Interesting enough, Jo Swinson and the Lib Dems are now going the nuclear route and pledge to revoke Article 50 if they win the general election, effectively pretends that the referendum never happened, and setting the precedent that British referendum votes from here on out isn't worth the ballot they're printed on.

Now I highly doubts they would win, but that announced platform is magnitudes more undemocratic than anything we have seen thus far in this circus.


Lib Dems pledge to cancel Brexit if they win general election
16 September 2019

The Liberal Democrats have pledged to cancel Brexit if they come to power at the next general election.

Members voted for the new policy at their party conference in Bournemouth by an overwhelming majority.

Previously, the party has backed another referendum or "People's Vote", saying they would campaign to Remain.

After the vote, their leader Jo Swinson, said: "We will do all we can to fight for our place in Europe, and to stop Brexit altogether."

The commitment only comes into force if the party wins the election as a majority government.

Ms Swinson also confirmed that before an election is called, the Lib Dems would continue to work with other opposition parties to campaign for a further referendum, and to prevent a "dangerous" no-deal Brexit.

She told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We still want to have a People's Vote. We've been arguing for that for the last three-and-a-half years - [to put] the Brexit deal to the public in a referendum.

"[But] when we have an election, if we haven't had a People's Vote, people will be looking to resolve the issue of Brexit, and there are so many people in this country who are so sick of hearing about it.

"They want to get on with their lives and want the government to get on with making their lives better."

In his first speech to conference as a Lib Dem MP, Chuka Umunna - who left Labour over its Brexit stance - said it would give the party a "clear, unequivocal position".

He said: "This [policy] will stop this national embarrassment and enable us to focus on the things that really matter."

But fellow Lib Dem MP Norman Lamb said the policy saw his party "playing with fire".

He told the Today programme that the polarisation between Leave and Remain was "incredibly dangerous", adding: "If we take this to the very limit in a situation where one side is vanquished entirely, I think there's a real danger that we break the social contract in our country.

"And I think that we all have a responsibility of reuniting the country in a common endeavour."

In Brexit terms, revoking Article 50 could be considered the nuclear option, stopping dead the process of leaving the EU.

It's just what the Liberal Democrats want and now they've adopted a policy to do exactly that - if they win a general election.

But the most important word in the last sentence is "if".

If they don't find themselves in government they will, we can assume, revert to campaigning for a further referendum as the best way to reverse the result of the last one.

So, this policy allows the party to send a message to voters that they are as opposed to Brexit as it's possible to be.

But it's not without risk for a party with the word "democrat" in its name to promise to overturn the result of a referendum without putting that question to the electorate again.

https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-49706643

Lib Dems ceased any pretence of relevance when they elected a woman as their leader

 

[deise69]

For starter, I don't know how the idea of a self-executing Brexit would work, for it would have to include every permutation of every combination of every possible Brexit negotiation angle, and furthermore, Parliament insists that they need to have the final vote in any Brexit deal, so there's still going to be a brawl at the end.

I don't look at the Brexit "binding" process with time constraints, because there isn't one, but only in term of execution and completion. Once Brexit is completed, then I think Parliament is free to immediately enact another Act to authorize another referendum to see if most of the country wants to rejoin the E.U.

I know plenty people in the forum don't want to see that happen, and they would much rather see another referendum replacing the result of the first one, then there's a chance they wouldn't have to deal with the fallout in the interim, but even they will have to admit that getting out before trying to get back in literally is the only way that would not violates anyone's democratic rights.

That's why the idea of holding another Brexit referendum before Brexit ever happened failed so hard when it was put to a vote in parliament, and to an American like me, that's akin to calling for another Presidential vote because the result didn't go your way, the official swearing-in ceremony is being repeatedly delayed even though the first election is widely accepted as legitimate, and there's talks about cancelling the vote result all tovether with the rationale that politicians lies and the people didn't really know what they voted for.

For the record, I would say the same thing had the Scottish Independence Referendum passed and then half of the country try to delay and derail the process before it's ever completed (and yes, that was also filled with scaremongering and creative campaigning materials as well, though the lies were obviously nowhere nearly as bad as Brexit).

If the UK leaves and then rejoins they will lose their rebates and will probably have to join the Euro and Schengen area. That's if the EU even want them back in.

 

[JDragon]

That's if the EU even want them back in.

And that's a big if given how their government is acting right now.

 

[JDragon]

I know plenty people in the forum don't want to see that happen, and they would much rather see another referendum replacing the result of the first one, then there's a chance they wouldn't have to deal with the fallout in the interim, but even they will have to admit that getting out before trying to get back in literally is the only way that would not violates anyone's democratic rights.

No, you have repeated that multiple times, but that does not make it correct.

The British government conducted the glorified opinion poll three years ago. A slim majority agreed with the notion of Brexit. Government acted on it and triggered Article 50 and negotiated a treaty. Contrary to publicized expectations among Brexit proponents, this process was not smooth and is also not likely to benefit the UK in the medium and long term (maybe very long term, who knows). Parliament has been completely unable to finalize it. Furthermore, exit proponents (like @WhitebeltXL or @Armbars) have changed their mind.

Why, and I repeat why would anyone under these circumstances deny the British the right to decide on their future? They answered a very unspecific question the first time, now the options are clearly on the table: No deal, May deal, fuck this shit.

Re-joining is not an option that is actually on the table. It is not realistic. Therefore, your proposed process is not viable.

The UK needs to decide now whether they want to be in or out. Permanently.

 

[Billy no mates]

Lib Dems ceased any pretence of relevance when they elected a woman as their leader

They also have a clear cogent unequivocal stance on Brexit which really shows their naivety , they have haven't left themselves any wiggle room .

They need to look at Labour today between the purges there will two contradictory motions on the matter tabled at their party conference , thats how you do politics .

 

[Fanu]