What happens if the government loses a Brexit-related HoC vote?

with representative democracy, there's an issue with referenda, which is why we rarely have them. A referendum chooses Course A, but what if Parliament wants Course B. And parliament is made up of people chosen by people...all the more difficult in this specific case when one of the aims of Brexit was to 'give back power to Parliament'.
I think the aim of Brexit was to remove power from Brussels, the subject of the balance of power between parliament, the executive and the people wasn't really on the ballot paper.
Parliament chose to have a referendum. It's a particularly duplicitous and/or arrogant politician who says yes we'll have a vote but if it doesn't go the way we want we'll ignore it, or notionally follow it but fiddle the outcome so that the result is not actually what people voted for. It's also in my opinion a particularly stupid one because I'm pretty sure the electorate will remember. That's why Ken Clark can afford to get on his morale high horse a) he's not seeking re-election b) his constituency voted remain. That as a high profile Tory he will damage other candidates chances by making the Tories look like a party who don't stick to their promises presumably is beneath his self interest.
 
Thank you for your honesty, like you I find it quite incredible that there is no concerted effort being made by the Govt and UK Business to advertise the UK is open and ready and willing to do business - for example, we should hold a massive ' Britain is Open' event where all UK businesses are invited to display there wares alongside Royalty and other UK institutions/Pop icons etc - we should be wining and dining business leaders and politicians from all over the world and if I had my way bringing the royal yacht 'Britannia' back into service and sending the Queen etc around the World to visit China etc - by all accounts the amount of Business generated for UK PLC on that ship, by people desperate to be seen with the Queen, was absolutely staggering! and should not be discounted by sad minded internet trolls with a grudge against the Royalty.
At present, I have seen zero evidence of any effort being made by anyone to promote the UK. Instead, TM is just allowing the EU and its Media to control the narrative.
This shows that either the no10 communications director is completely incompetent or its deliberate! A decent leader would be fighting and winning the information war.
Sadly TM doesn't know how to win, doesn't want to win and is a national embarrassment at a time when we need someone with Leadership qualities - NONE of the other part leaders are any better!

Thats because most of our Establishment are still very much part of the EU machine.

This is one of the main reasons I personally voted out - the chronic underselling of Britain Plc in favour of EU GmbH (sic).

I've spent most of my career as an expat businessman. I've always (a) been astonished by the enthusiasm for all things British by foreign cultures, but (b) dismayed by the withdrawal of all political and diplomatic support for British business, and its replacement with banner EU marketing (which, in most cases, means Germany).
 
Thank you for your honesty, like you I find it quite incredible that there is no concerted effort being made by the Govt and UK Business to advertise the UK is open and ready and willing to do business - for example, we should hold a massive ' Britain is Open' event where all UK businesses are invited to display there wares alongside Royalty and other UK institutions/Pop icons etc - we should be wining and dining business leaders and politicians from all over the world and if I had my way bringing the royal yacht 'Britannia' back into service and sending the Queen etc around the World to visit China etc - by all accounts the amount of Business generated for UK PLC on that ship, by people desperate to be seen with the Queen, was absolutely staggering! and should not be discounted by sad minded internet trolls with a grudge against the Royalty.
At present, I have seen zero evidence of any effort being made by anyone to promote the UK. Instead, TM is just allowing the EU and its Media to control the narrative.
This shows that either the no10 communications director is completely incompetent or its deliberate! A decent leader would be fighting and winning the information war.
Sadly TM doesn't know how to win, doesn't want to win and is a national embarrassment at a time when we need someone with Leadership qualities - NONE of the other part leaders are any better!
Yes, get the queen and her familiy up and moving, this is a time of crisis, whatever people say one way or the other but it is recoverable and we can be better off if this is handled right.

By now we should have a range of influential new friends putting pressure on the EU not to **** us as we leave. Our new trading partners and allies should be telling the EU that hurting the UK means hurting their interests too so pack it in.

Trump, he is the biggest, loudest, most orange and most powerful ally that we have and everyone listens to him because they know he can / will **** them over if he wants to. He has not been treated like a friend by us so far, him and TM do not seem to get along which is hardly surprising but she would do well to look at his popularity and harness that here.
I would have been on the phone to him straight away to get him over here and talking but especially get his kids to open up some new trump business here.

This is not often covered but our pre-EU partners such as the commonwealth and our closer friends i the Anglo-Sphere were cut off by us when we joined the EU, we had to cut them off and deal with them through the UK. Remember how ¨British¨ the Canadians were compared with how American they seem now? Those are our allies and friends and we need them all, the ozzies, kiwis, canadians and even the americans, on our side and speaking about us in the media.

I favour visa free travel for holidays and work for Anglo-sphere countries. At the moment it is far to difficult for them to settle in the UK and if it came down to it, who would the average British person prefer come and settle, Mohammod and his 3 wives and 12 children or an Australian, Canadian, Kiwi or American family? Let´s get them over here. It is in fact so difficult that the most common method of obtaining permission to settle in the UK is to dress up like Osama Bin Laden and sneak over in the back of a lorry before claiming asylum.

Events like you suggested are important and we need many. Let´s get Ranulph Fiennes to organise another mad, bad and dangerous expedition of global significance and get it in the press every day with a ¨look at those crazy Brit´s doing it again¨ type of story.

Military, clearly this needs to be sorted out and expanded again with an industry to go along with it but having a decent sized carrier ought to help. They might be busy getting ready now but they can be doing that off the coast of a potential new friend and in the evening or while resupplying in port there can be parties and expo´s on the massive deck while way subtly say ¨look at this, want one?¨

The entire contact network we (should) have from the former colonies needs to be exploited, dust of the black book and get on the phone but not communists or socialist dictatorships. As a new world power we cannot be seen to support such things.

There is so much to be done and not enough time to do it which is why this should all have started 2 years ago and one of the reasons that I like Jacob Rees-Mogg is that when he suggested the same thing, Michael Grove told him ¨ẅe can´t do that while we are still a member state¨ and Mogg replied ¨But we are leaving no mater what so we don´t need to act as if we were a member state anymore - what are they going to do about it?, throw us out?¨
 
From the Independent:

'Tory rebels insist they can win a fresh Commons showdown to secure a “meaningful vote” to block a no-deal Brexit, after attempts to find a compromise with Theresa May were abandoned.

The two sides were said to be “at loggerheads” late on Tuesday, setting the scene for a nailbiting vote designed to guarantee the UK cannot crash out of the EU without an agreement.

The Independent was told that Theresa May had called in some of the rebels to persuade them personally to back down – with the government increasingly confident that its arm-twisting was succeeding.

But one backbencher behind the revolt dismissed the claim that it was poised to fail because some of its supporters were being “turned”.

“That is a classic whips operation,” he said. “There’s no evidence that the people who said they would vote with us are peeling away.”

Anna Soubry, another leading rebel, insisted they would not be cowed, despite huge public pressure, tweeting: “Death threats becoming routine & making many of us more resolute.”

And she quoted Winston Churchill to rebut allegations that she is a “traitor”, saying: “The first duty of a member of parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain.”

Defeat would be hugely damaging for Ms May, triggering fury among her pro-Brexit MPs - who insist no deal must remain an option - and allegations of weakness.'
 
I think the aim of Brexit was to remove power from Brussels, the subject of the balance of power between parliament, the executive and the people wasn't really on the ballot paper.
Parliament chose to have a referendum. It's a particularly duplicitous and/or arrogant politician who says yes we'll have a vote but if it doesn't go the way we want we'll ignore it, or notionally follow it but fiddle the outcome so that the result is not actually what people voted for. It's also in my opinion a particularly stupid one because I'm pretty sure the electorate will remember. That's why Ken Clark can afford to get on his morale high horse a) he's not seeking re-election b) his constituency voted remain. That as a high profile Tory he will damage other candidates chances by making the Tories look like a party who don't stick to their promises presumably is beneath his self interest.
There wasn't really anything on the ballot paper. And I'm pretty sure a lot of the rhetoric talked about returning sovereignty to Parliament. But you're right, for the government to have said, after the fact, 'er no, not what we wanted' would have been too difficult.

That's not to say that it wouldn't be statesmanlike (even if dangerous at the polls) to say "look guys, every option we've looked at is worse than staying in" (if that were found to be so).
 
There wasn't really anything on the ballot paper.
The question was simple in or out of the EU, answer out. Only a politician with his moral principles stuffed well up his rectum can claim that staying in the customs union and single market = out, but that's not stopping some of them. Then we have the lawyers who have no morals at all claiming they're interested in parliamentary oversight when what they're really trying to do is wreck the whole thing. It's interesting to consider the parliamentary oversight of our accession to the EEC and subsequent "Your in a united Europe a bit deeper" treaties. Parliament got shown the treaty and told "You will vote this through", no amendments no meaningful discussion. Where were these champions of parliamentary oversight then.
That's not to say that it wouldn't be statesmanlike (even if dangerous at the polls) to say "look guys, every option we've looked at is worse than staying in" (if that were found to be so).
The problem with making that statement is it would be a lie. No one knows what will happen to the economy, they're all guessing based on their previous prejudice about whether we should be in or out. It would be statesman like to admit this.
 
From the Independent:

'Tory rebels insist they can win a fresh Commons showdown to secure a “meaningful vote” to block a no-deal Brexit, after attempts to find a compromise with Theresa May were abandoned.

The two sides were said to be “at loggerheads” late on Tuesday, setting the scene for a nailbiting vote designed to guarantee the UK cannot crash out of the EU without an agreement.

The Independent was told that Theresa May had called in some of the rebels to persuade them personally to back down – with the government increasingly confident that its arm-twisting was succeeding.

But one backbencher behind the revolt dismissed the claim that it was poised to fail because some of its supporters were being “turned”.

“That is a classic whips operation,” he said. “There’s no evidence that the people who said they would vote with us are peeling away.”

Anna Soubry, another leading rebel, insisted they would not be cowed, despite huge public pressure, tweeting: “Death threats becoming routine & making many of us more resolute.”

And she quoted Winston Churchill to rebut allegations that she is a “traitor”, saying: “The first duty of a member of parliament is to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain.”

Defeat would be hugely damaging for Ms May, triggering fury among her pro-Brexit MPs - who insist no deal must remain an option - and allegations of weakness.'
Please remember when reading the papers that a) they have their own spin to put on it depending on the papers in or out view, b) the papers love to talk up an argument as it gives them something to publish. Imagine if this were the new federal Europe treaty, presented to parliament by the government to be passed. It would get a paragraph or two for a couple of days. Their might be a bit of a winge because we weren't getting a referendum.
 
Please remember when reading the papers that a) they have their own spin to put on it depending on the papers in or out view, b) the papers love to talk up an argument as it gives them something to publish. Imagine if this were the new federal Europe treaty, presented to parliament by the government to be passed. It would get a paragraph or two for a couple of days. Their might be a bit of a winge because we weren't getting a referendum.
Noted. I thought it summarised the opposing views of the pre-vote situation. It is hard to find a paper that is genuinely independent. Impossible in fact.
 
I thought it summarised the opposing views of the pre-vote situation. It is hard to find a paper that is genuinely independent. Impossible in fact.
I suspect some people's views are also a bit elastic depending on who they are talking to. At the end of the day it will be the division counts recorded in Hansard that matter, everything else is hot air.
 
The question was simple in or out of the EU, answer out. Only a politician with his moral principles stuffed well up his rectum can claim that staying in the customs union and single market = out, but that's not stopping some of them. Then we have the lawyers who have no morals at all claiming they're interested in parliamentary oversight when what they're really trying to do is wreck the whole thing. It's interesting to consider the parliamentary oversight of our accession to the EEC and subsequent "Your in a united Europe a bit deeper" treaties. Parliament got shown the treaty and told "You will vote this through", no amendments no meaningful discussion. Where were these champions of parliamentary oversight then.

The problem with making that statement is it would be a lie. No one knows what will happen to the economy, they're all guessing based on their previous prejudice about whether we should be in or out. It would be statesman like to admit this.
Your logic is confused. The first point was about my original statement saying that it was ironic that the discussions were about returning sovereignty to parliament and then people getting antsy about the idea of parliament then taking a contrary position. You replied by pointing out that it wasn't on the ballot paper. Now, to quote General Xaip, "that is true, but it is also irrelevant" (to my original point).

The second premise you make is incorrect. I posited an hypothetical situation where it was found that all flavours of Brexit were found to be worse than remaining. You said that would be a lie. It would only be a lie if the hypothetical situation had been found not to be true AND was still presented as the truth (lie = intent to deceive).

Lastly, whilst I share general concerns about lawyers and politicians, I have a bit more faith in accountants and statisticians. Accountants follow the 'prudence principle' (don't bank on it unless you can bank it) and statisticians (and scientists) use the principle of the 'null hypothesis' (the status quo remains true until you have evidence to the contrary). Under those ideas, justifying leaving on the basis of saying 'well, nobody really knows' is not a valid argument.

There are lots of good reasons to discuss leaving, amending our status within, or even reforming the EU, but that isn't one of them.
 
The question was simple in or out of the EU, answer out. Only a politician with his moral principles stuffed well up his rectum can claim that staying in the customs union and single market = out,
But in the end the European Union and the Single Market(The European Economic Area (EEA)) are not the same thing, and there are EEA participants who are not in the EU or indeed the "European Union Customs Union" (EUCU).

It isn't being mendacious to point out that the political structure (the EU) can be departed from without necessarily exiting the trading arrangements (The EEA). Nor is it immoral to indicate that doing so would remove us from 75% (approximately) of the current Acquis Communitaire of EU regulations and laws; reduce our overall contributions (once we have transited the spending agreements we've made under existing treaties); allow us to negotiate tighter border controls; and take us out of the jurisdiction of the Cour de Justice. Nor is it wrong to point out that such an arrangement would be the least economically damaging first step in the process of exiting European political structures.

Issues normally raised at this point of the discussion.

What about the "Customs Union" (EUCU)?
EUCU is a complete red herring, you can't be in it if you aren't an EU member. The EEA was set up because in all it's existence to that point EUCU had done precisely nothing to assist in the free movement of goods and services. Relaxed trade with "Europe" depends on access to the EEA and has nothing to do with EUCU.

Is there a risk we'd be left half in half out?
Yes. The Pols could chicken out having managed an economically neutral exit from the EU, and not carry on with the further steps to build a European free trade zone that had no foolish federal government pretensions.
BUT
If they lack the stones and talent to pursue a path which causes the least possible economic and legal disturbance, what chance have they got of pulling of a strategy that must have significant economic and hence political impact.

Won't we just be stuck with EU regulations handed to us?
To some extent, this is counterbalanced by us regaining our independent vote on the multi-national bodies that are handing those same regulations to the EU in the first place.

A bespoke agreement would be better.
Any bespoke agreement is going to have to address common standards; acceptance of testing and certification regimes; joint licencing of laboratories; agreement on enforcement protocols and institutions; and an arbitration body for settling disputes, disagreements and differing interpretations. By the time that's done I'd doubt it would look much different to the 25% of the current Acquis that we'd be bound to as an EEA participant.

We could go "No Deal" and trade with Europe under "WTO rules"
Anyone who thinks this needs to wipe the pus from their infected lobotomy wound. No country in the world trades under "WTO rules" only.

Ireland
Whatever you've heard, there is no *workable* way of preserving an open trade border between Eire and Ulster and Ulster and the rest of the UK: that doesn't involve the whole of the UK having full access to the EEA.

Honestly, we spent about 60 years entangling ourselves in Europe, there isn't a "leap and a bound" way of getting out quickly without some very negative economic and political consequences.

And yes I voted to leave.
 
Today Teresa May caved in yet again to the remainers. by giving the HoC speaker the decision over whether to call for a parliament vote or not on the final deal shes basically given Dominique grieve exactly what he wanted which is a parliamentary veto.
Why? quite simply because Bercow is publicly anti Brexit and cannot be trusted to make that decision without bias, worse, his potential replacement Harriet Harperson is also a staunch remainer.
Make no mistake, Barnier and Co will be happy with todays fudge because they know they can still give us a pathetic deal knowing Bercow/Parliament will not allow the govt to accept it
 


I'd suggest no comment is required.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top