British Politics Thread

The Referendum wasn't binding, and considering that the ones who voted leave was not even a third of the voters of the UK AND that a number of people who will be hit the hardest by Brexit weren't allowed to vote - meaning Expats who have been living outside the UK for too long - there are a number of arguments why "protecting the democracy" is a piss poor excuse for not acting now. Democracy is a process, and a lot of people voted "leave" under the impression that they still would get access to the single market, because that's what the leave campaign promised.

Another reason not to follow through and instead "take the advise" is that so far no leave party has ever gotten a majority in the government.

No, protecting democracy is absolutely vital in the current climate that the UK finds itself in. This is the kind of moment where democracy gets destroyed in favour of something 'new'. The Tories have already held the continent hostage and ruined the UK's economic future with their little internal civil war, for the ones in government right now, rule of the few for the few is exactly what they've been after (and even quite openly working towards since 2010).

If British democracy is badly damaged by this process (more than the broken nature of its system, that is - the British system of democracy is very fragile), the UK really will be screwed even more than it currently is.

British politics works on precedence, which is why Gina Miller was so determined to get this court ruling in the first place. As soon as an parliamentary overrule of an electoral vote occurs, the nature of British democracy is weakened in a very fundamental way.

It is not at all easy for MPs now to override the referendum, even though it's non-binding. It cause another constitutional crisis and make it easier to ignore electoral votes in the future if they decide it's necessary.

Someone on the other page mentioned Corbyn's likely motivation for his current position is about protecting democracy in this country, and that's very likely to be an accurate assessment of him. Corbyn has always put the democratic process first throughout his entire career; that hasn't changed - as the past year's PLP idiocy has shown.

He was the first politician to point out, and campaign on (during the referendum), the threat to UK democratic processes that leaving the EU would cause. His focus was on protecting UK democracy, welfare, employee rights and the NHS.

All of this is under threat by May right now — that's what the attempt to push through Article 50 without parliamentary oversight was, an attempt to create the precedence necessary for rendering parliament obsolete for any future attempt to change UK laws (particularly employment and human rights laws — which May openly worked towards while in charge of the Home Office).

Fortunately, there were people who guessed early on that the Tories would attempt exactly this (I saw it coming months ago - even before the referendum vote, as did many other people); even more fortunately, some of those people were in a position to ensure the courts made it as difficult as possible for the government to create the precedence they needed to successfully subvert democracy (which requires subverting parliamentary sovereignty).

Unfortunately, that leaves parliament trapped between a rock and a hard place, i.e., it makes it extremely difficult even for Remain MPs to vote against triggering Article 50.

edited 24th Jan '17 3:59:14 PM by Wyldchyld

If my post doesn't mention a giant flying sperm whale with oversized teeth and lionfish fins for flippers, it just isn't worth reading.

Would it be possible for parliament to pass a bill establishing something like "we give consent to the activation of article 50 to get a brexit deal with these characteristics {single market + EU legal protections to the population of the UK} and should such an agreement not be reached, article 50 is automatically withdrawn?"

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV

No - a nation's future relationship with the EU isn't negotiated until after it leaves.

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

That's not what I meant, I meant something like having parliament approving the activation of article 50 on the condition of attempting to achieve a deal of single-market + keeping the current EU regulations and protections in UK law, and automatically reversing the activation of the article (staying in the EU) should the UK not get those things.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV

Parliament has yet to debate the whole process. And, by that I mean both Houses. May bas declared the timeframe she's shooting for, but each step needs debating.

Either the Houses of Commons or Lords could try plastering stipulations on their approval of each debated point, but doing so on the whole package might not be doable. Because there's no way May is going to let a general debate on the whole thing even start as a single Bill. <_<

According to the Supreme Court, I don't think so. Article 50 can't be conditional or reversible. Either they say "out" and then negotiate, or don't.

@Wyldchild: The thing is that, in the UK, the one ultimate pole star of the government is that what Parliament says, goes^note As usual, the Queen's an exception and very rarely one.. So overriding a non-binding referendum because there aren't the votes in Parliament to get it passed says nothing - if Britain wants to Brexit, they have to elect politicians who will Brexit. Calling it a constitutional crisis is a bit overblown.

So if Labour plus rogue Conservatives ultimately scuttle the bill, then it's scuttled. The reason that they shouldn't actually scuttle it is because May would immediately dissolve Parliament, purge the defectors, and hold a re-vote with a significant majority - not because of Brexit, though she'd spin it that way, but because Labour is currently not a functioning party and the snap map is way in the Tories' favor.

Obviously, the SNP have neither a desire nor an obligation to vote for Brexit, but England and Wales are the ones who decide these things.

edited 24th Jan '17 9:43:42 PM by Ramidel

The PM can't dissolve parliament on a whim any more.

"Yup. That tasted purple."

That is assuming though that a reelection wouldn't go in favour of those parties and politicians which openly go against Brexit.

Or here's an idea, Labour votes against Brexit in parliament, it passes anyway because May whips it though and when the entire shit shown collapses in 2019 due to Brexit being a stupid idea Labour collects big in political gains for the 2020 election where we campaign openly on rejoining the EU.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

What makes you think that the EU will want you back? Remember, the UK basically begged two years to be let in, because France didn't think it would be a good fit. And once is was in, it only made trouble. It wanted rebates, extra-rules, whined about every little thing and pushed its Neoliberal Agenda even though the EU is supposed to be a social economy. It send a while group of politicians whose only job was to not turn up to the discussion but then block and wreck as much as possible to the EU parliament. Once the "divorce" is through, what makes you think that the EU will want to go through all this again?

Because the EU is build on the idea of giving countries who repent from trying to destroy the continent with selfish greed a second chance.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Yeah, triggering Article 50 and going through those two years of mayhem will burn our contacts with Europe to the ground. Not only that, but the negative effects won't all begin immediately - 2020 may be too early for buyer's remorse to kick in - and the destabilising effect on the EU of our departure may mean that by the time the nation comes around to the idea of rejoining (if it ever does), there isn't much left to join again.

Let's be real here - Brexit will be disastrous, but it's now inevitable and irreversible. We need to shape policy according to the reality we live in. This isn't something like the welfare cap, where protest is totally valid because it's a signal that you'll repeal it when you get back into government, this is a permanent alteration to the British political situation. It's the deal at the end of the negotiations that is up for grabs, and that's what Labour is focusing their efforts on.

edited 25th Jan '17 1:16:19 AM by Iaculus

What's precedent ever done for us?

After Farage, Gove, and Johnson...yeah, I don't see the EU letting the UK back any time soon if ever.

edited 25th Jan '17 1:33:07 AM by M84

Disgusted, but not surprised

The lead plaintiff on the abuse she has received from Brexiteers for leading the Supreme Court case against the British government over Article 50.

Truly, warriors for democracy.

I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot

But the Brexiteers aren't reactionary racist dingbats. This must be a LIE.

(I hope I'm laying on the snark thick enough)

Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.

It would be a major act of hypocracy on the part of the EU to refuse to ever forgive a ruined and repentant England and Wales (Scotland and Norhtern Ireland having broken away), to dam generations to suffer because of the sins of their fathers. The EU was founded on forgiving those who had done wrong by the continent and are now committed to righting their mistakes.

To accept Brexit is to accept destroying the home of a generation and destroying the United Kingdom as a country, I'll never support a political party that backs the envoking of article 50.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I think few people would argue that racist reactionary dingbats don't exist or that they didn't vote leave, but it is unfair to pretend that the people spewing this abuse aren't a minority of those who voted leave.

---

Re: Labour's stance. The way I see it they have no good options.

• They can vote against Article 50 and be seen to be anti-democratic (and by more than those who voted leave), utterly rubbishing their chances of a plurality in the next election; they'll also be seen as obstructionist and that'll be used against them every time they try and stop the Tories on anything, particularly anything that can be vaguely related to Brexit - which is basically everything.
• They can argue against Article 50 but vote for it and be seen to be wishy washy and anti-democratic (for arguing against the referendum result) and failing the 48% (for voting for Article 50).
• They can vote for Article 50 and be seen as betraying their base.

Honestly the last is the one I think serves them best:

• The people who see voting Article 50 as simply upholding the will of the people (more than 50% of voters) won't hold it against them.
• The Tories can't hold it against them since they'd also vote for Article 50, and UKIP certainly can't hold it against them.
• Labour doesn't stand a chance in Northern Ireland or Scotland anyway so upset voters in those countries won't affect their chances in a general election.
• They can hold it up as an example of being willing to work with the Tories and that when they oppose them, it's not purely a 'the Tories want it so we don't' reactionary position (this will be largely negated by the whole 'upholding the will of the people' but it's better than not having it).
• Many of the people in England and Wales who will be angry at Labour for voting for Article 50 will still oppose the Tories more than be angry at Labour. Of course the results of the American election shows that this isn't a sure thing as betraying the base also leads to more third party voters and lower turnout but there are two important differences:
  • the base will be split between 'voted leave', 'uphold the referendum result even though I don't like it', and 'stay in the EU', so a smaller proportion will feel betrayed than in America;
  • Corbyn is more anti-establishment (where Clinton was establishment) and May is more establishment (where Trump was seen as anti-establishment)

edited 25th Jan '17 4:49:53 AM by annemarisa

The referendum was itself a subversion fo democracy, it was a cheep trick and nothing more. Democracy isn't just having a vote and that's it. Democracy is a process and a system, it's about checks and ballences, it's about people knowing what they're voting for, it's about a free and fair press, it's about avoiding a tyranny of the majority.

The Labour Party will be dead if it votes for article 50, it will have betrayed the basic values of socialism and democracy. The idea that Labour can win in 2020 by being an accomplice to the destruction of my home, my future and the UK as a country is laughable.

Voting for article 50 is simply an attempt to out Tory the Tories, that will never lead to an election victory. At some point the Labour Party will be asked why it allowed the Tories to destroy the country and the future of a generation, if it can't say "we didn't, we voted against" then it's dead.

Relying on hatred of the Tories to get people to vote Labour already cost Labour Scotland, it will cost Labour a lot more unless it does something to earn the votes of the people.

edited 25th Jan '17 5:01:22 AM by Silasw

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Whats your stance on Brexit again?

Also, it wasn't >50% of the electorate which voted for Brexit. It was barely over 50% of 72% of the electorate, so its only 38-ish percent who want it, despite May treating it as an overwhelming call of the people

"You can reply to this Message!"

And that's not even considering all the people who voted Brexit just to vote against Cameron, nor all the lies spread by the proponents of Brexit,

Exactly. We're at this point because the Tories screwed up on an internal power-play and are busy trying to spin it as "the will of the people" and "democracy at work" when this so-called mandate is an excuse to Nasty Party it up until our system strains under the weight and snaps.

We have tiny constitutional crisis after tiny crisis — each small enough to dismiss as a real one, yet... taken as a whole... May is taking a sledge to decades of constitutional law.

I blame Murdoch and his ilk to be honest. They are the source of the movement. The slime.

"...in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach."

You know, I really don't agree with the "it was only x% of the electorate" argument, since it allows anyone to claim the results are not legitimate when an election is close. Of course, that doesn't apply to situations of rampant voter suppression, but if there is none it's kind of bullshit to claim that non voters would have voted the way you prefer. That is not to say that the leave camp isn't selectively interpreting the result of a poorly explained referendum in ways to benefit their goals, but it's kind of hypocritical to claim a defense of democracy when asking to dismiss the result of a vote in the name of those who didn't vote.

1 2 We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be. -KV