UKC

Andrew Marr has just asked Michael Gove whether, if parliament succeeds in legislating next week to prevent No Deal, the government will be bound by that decision. 

Gove's response was "We'll have to see what the legislation says".

So we now have a government that is blatantly prepared to break the law in order to get it's way. The prospects for our democracy are really worrying if anyone on here is prepared to defend that.

Martin

It’s beyond belief.

Yes, utterly boggling. This government simply has to be stopped. They are being driven by extremist c*nts who don't give a shit about democracy with a compliant prime minister who lied and promised whatever was necessary to get to that position and is now prepared to be utterly unscrupulous in order to stay there.

Totally agree. 

This is well worth a read:

https://sergiograziosi.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/fascism-for-dummies/amp/?__...

First let me make it clear I do not agree with what the government has done but perhaps you could explain how they have broken the law.

As far as I can see all that BOTH sides are doing is using every trick in the book within the law to get what they want.  All the faux outrage, on both sides, is when the "jiggery pokery" appears to be against their sides interests.

There are, currently, serious threats to our democracy but they started when one side decided that 17.4 million people MUST be wrong and either ignorant, racist or bigoted and subsequently worked against the system to overturn that vote. The majority of people may well be wrong but in a healthy democracy you have to respect their views.

Al 

They haven't broken the law yet. But the question was asked about parliament passing a law preventing no deal and they would not say that they would abide by it, so effectively saying that they are willing to break the law.

The system allows people to campaign against decisions or things that they believe to be against the country's interests and that has been happening, within the law and current convention since the vote in 2016. What has happened here with prorogation appears to be legal but shits all over convention (and may also be illegal due to the blatant lie used as reasoning), and Gove suggesting the government might just ignore legislation passed by parliament has to be bordering on the illegal. 

There is no six-of-one equivalence here.

We don't have a healthy democracy and haven't for a while. The new developments are making it worse, although I don't think it amounts to a coup - yet.

This isn't about "sides" or brexit, it's now much bigger. It's about ministers agreeing to follow the law as agreed by parliament, not only following bits they happen find convenient.  If you don't think this is troubling, try reversing the situation to one where the government was trying to achieve something you objected to against the wishes of parliament?  In that case would you be happy for ministers to simply propose ignoring parliament.

Kier Starmer was on before him and I got that "if only he was Leader of the Opposition" pang again.

Not necessarily. With enough clever spin you could probably get a majority of people to believe vaccination is a waste of time, or that cancer therapy should be replaced with homeopathy because that would save the NHS a billion pounds a week, but it would be pretty stupid to go along with their wishes. The overwhelming evidence indicates it's wrong to do it.

Brexit is less clear cut, the majority of businesses and economists are certain it will have a detrimental effect on the UK, but there are one or two outliers who reckon it will be positive. If the vote had been 60:40 then I'd probably grudgingly accept it, but to all intents and purposes it's 50:50.

Plus people voted for all sorts of different Brexits ranging from effectively being in the EU but with no part of the decision making process, staying in the European Economic Area, being a bit like Canada right up to lets nuke the Frogs and the Krauts and send all the Pakistanis home. Brexit means whatever people think it means. An ill-defined and nebulous concept with huge risks to the economy and society is not something a healthy democracy should be pursuing, particulary with half the population for/against it.

Why?  If views of bigoted and xenophobic etc., I don't see why they should be respected.  A referendum result should be taken seriously, and it was.   It was the brexiteers who chose to vote down leaving with a deal however,  as much as any other group. They had the power pass it but chose not to

I must have misunderstood I thought that the law agreed by Parliament was that we were leaving the EU.  If anyone is not following things that they don't find convenient it's those campaigning to remain. I'm not happy for ministers to ignore parliament but I'm equally, perhaps even more unhappy about parliament ignoring the people.

Why?  If views of bigoted and xenophobic etc., I don't see why they should be respected. But that's a dangerous road to set off down. It's also a stupid argument.  You are assuming that every Brexit supporter is like that.

Al

It's  not about parliament ignoring the people. It's about parliament doing what it believes to be best when faced with the option of no deal brexit or delay and work it out. Brexit meant so many different things. Now it is clarified as meaning no deal brexit only, it is only right for parliament to exercise its democratic function and act in what it believes to be the best interests of the people.

We have representative democracy in this country, this means parliament represents voters as it thinks best, not that it carries out the wishes of voters.

If MPs actually voted for what they think is best for the UK they would vote to revoke Article 50 and face their constituents at the next election.

Yes, you misunderstood. Parliament voted to enact Article 50, not leave under any circumstances. I'll campaign against any law or process I dislike, thanks. THAT is democracy. 

Well my understanding was that by enacting Article 50 we were leaving the Customs Union, the Single Market and the influence of the ECJ. 

You misunderstand me.  I would fight for your right to campaign against any law you did not like and agree that is democracy so I'm not sure why you should imply that I thought otherwise.

Al

As it stands, that is the case, yes.

No.  Campaigning is part of a healthy democracy.

It's not - as above.  In any case, our system of government isn't direct democracy, it's parlimentary democracy..  If you really want direct democracy, I suggest you campaign for it.

I'm not (here), I am saying that those view shouldn't be respected.  Where do you draw the line?  Am I meant to respect views that support torture, slavery and rape too?

Except they wouldn't because there isn't a majority for that in parliament.

Except I’ve heard on numerous occasions from various commentators that the majority of MPs are remainers.

If that’s true then they should have the courage of their convictions and revoke or if it’s not true and the majority are leavers then they should vote to leave.

Instead they’re either looking out for their future careers or playing party politics.

Mr Tusk said not to waste this time and that’s exactly what MPs are doing.

I think you may have misunderstood, and perhaps not caught up with what Gove said this morning which is now, thankfully, being denounced by politicians of all parties. The government is not above the law and is currently acting in accordance with the earlier law you cite. But what parliament may do next week, entirely within it's rights, is to pass further legislation which modifies that earlier law and forbids leaving the EU without a deal. Where a later law contradicts an earlier one, the later law prevails. Otherwise we would still be gaoling gay people and hanging murderers. Gove refused to confirm that the government would obey new legislation, lawfully passed next week, that was contrary to its current policy. He was quite blatantly refusing to rule out the government breaking the law. This is what is so shocking.

Martin

on the majority possibly being wrong but having to go along anyway as its democracy.

the majority are almost allways wrong in a large sample.

what we should have is representitive democracy. at least the elected few are clever enough to get elected, so their choices stand a better chance of being right than those of the majority, which includes loads of less clever people.

large group democracy is more about deciding what is right or wrong, i.e. steering decisions. rather than weighted decisions. i think.

Their personal views are of course a mix.  However, their job is to use their best judgment about the best interests of the country and their constituents, and vote accordingly,  That may not always be in line with their personal views.  We know there isn't a majority for supporting remain in the HoC because indicative votes showed there wasn't support even for Customs Union membership 

Curiously some unelected Labour baroness was calling for mass protests to over turn a referendum vote. Not sure many of Labour or momentums ideas of democracy matches the dictionary. 

From my grasp haven't they just extended the September recess by 2 or 5 days? Hardly the end of the world. I do think it will have cost them votes though. Hopefully lib dems gain if they can sort themselves out. 

Your grasp isn't very good.  A recess and proroguing parliament are not the same thing.

Of course we are a parliamentary democracy but the referendum took us into a direct democracy for a brief moment. Rightly or wrongly, stupid or sensible is now irrelevant.  I happen to think stupid and irresponsible.

I'm not for a moment suggesting that campaigning is either unhealthy or undemocratic.

I'm not defending views that are abhorrent but it could become a thin line.  Some people might find Marxist views abhorrent for example and want to ban that.

Al

Ok. How many extra days in September are the mps not sitting ? 

Not necessarily. It's almost certainly in the best interests of the UK economy simply to Revoke Article 50. But it would not be in the best interests of our democracy, which is currently under serious threat, to just ignore the 52%. Most MP's voted to Remain in 2016, which is not surprising as they are generally better educated, better informed and, to be fair, less disadvantaged and less affected by austerity than the majority of the population. But weighing the interests of the economy and our democracy in the balance many of them have reached the conclusion that they should either support leaving with a deal, or a second people's vote. Hopefully a clear majority are now united around rejecting no deal and will not be swayed from following through on that in their votes next week.

Martin

Just because something is made law does not mean I'm obliged to agree it should be, duty bound to meekly accept it without a fight. That's a very dangerous idea and frankly if you think through a historical example or two you'll see it is neither sensible nor how we actually do things.

Jk

http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/how-mps-voted-in-the-eu-referendum-11364110...

So this poll was wrong, really wrong?

I don't see the relevance of this.  The problem currently is barely related to brexit, its to do with cabinet minister openly considering ignoring parliament.

Well you seemed to be objecting to it.

You were talking about respecting view.  I feel no need to respect views I regard as abhorrent, even if I might tolerate them.  I said nothing about banning anything.

Given it was a secret ballot, no one can know. As above, however, MPs personal views are not the same thing as how they might or should vote in parliament.

Can you explain exactly how you came to that understanding because it was only on version of many that were on offer back then? Frankly it still is just one possible path we may or may not take. 

Because you said as much. 

Jk

We don't know because they may have voted for a shorter recess.  Also nothing happens in committees etc.  You know all this, so why play dumb?

I'm not sure I have ever said or even thought otherwise

What I may have pointed out, and this would have been my intention, is the hypocrisy of objecting to the use of a set of devices to achieve an outcome that may well be bordering on illegality, dishonesty etc. whilst remaining silent when similar actions support your own cause.

Not you personally I might add but rather in general.

"Because I said as much?"  Reference please.

Al

You still seem to be regarding this as a brexit matter - it isn't.  Also pretending that proroguing parliament and threatening to ignore its decisions is comparable to anything that has happened for decades, if not centuries, to force any other issue is nonsense.

The issue is that Johnson has denied MPs the ability to decide not to take that customary recess in full, at a time of deep political cricis. But you knew that of course.

Jk

Here I see the implication that opposition to bad law made at the behest of 'the will of the people' is immoral, the problem we face here. This is a central tenet of fascism.

This is what I meant when you had 'said as much' 

Jk

I agree It's far bigger than Brexit but Brexit is the catalyst.  If you recall I also said that I disagreed with this so I'm not sure what your argument against me is exactly.

Al

The difference between a recess (eg as is normal for Party Conferences) and proroguing is that after a recess parliament can carry on with the legislation it was pursuing before the recess. Proroguing parliament has the effect of stopping all legislation completely. If parliament wants to carry on later with the same legislation it has to start again from the beginning (ie from First Reading).

Ministers have claimed that only 5 sitting days have been lost by proroguing parliament. But the period remaining is cut into two halves with no possibility of carrying legislation forward from the first half to the second. So instead of an effectively continuous period of around 20 days to pass new legislation to outlaw No Deal, parliament now has one period of 4 or 5 days next week and another period after the conferences of around 10 days, 5 of which are to be taken up with a state opening and compulsory debate on the Queen's speech. So if new legislation cannot be passed in 5 days - desperately tight for all the required Readings in the Commons and Lords - it will not be passed.

Sorry to have explained that in detail, but I think it's a vital point that has been largely missed. Certainly the BBC have not been quick to challenge ministers on this point when they have quite blatantly lied that the proroguing of parliament has nothing to do with Brexit.

Martin

So most MPs possibly voted to remain in the referendum possibly because they thought that was the best thing to do.

Yet when it comes to voting in parliament they don’t think that remaining is best for the country?

I understand that they don’t always vote according to their personal preference but they should when it’s as important as Brexit.

How about they vote to leave then?

Good to agree with you Al on this point.

My perspective is that underlying all this is that we have had governments of both complexions over the last 20 years which have failed to address the increasing inequalities between rich and poor that are not a direct result of government policies, but an inevitable result of globalisation. At the same time we have seen a decreasing respect for the views of experts and increasing access through the internet to the ill-informed views of the inexpert. 

We now have an aggrieved portion of the population ripe for manipulation by unscrupulous populist politicians of the mold of Johnson, Rees-Mogg and Farage. The Brexit referendum and subsequent hardening (I fear) of views on this issue is the result of this underlying trend, which is also the cause of Trump's ascendancy in the US.

Yes, it's now far bigger than Brexit. There is an increasing possibility that we could be seeing the re-run of the rise of fascism in Europe in the 30's. As yet it's a small possibility, but we should ignore it at our peril.

Martin

I understand the process and I think any legislation should be good enough to get through parliament by fair means, not foul. But the actual number of days lost is minimal although as you say the repercussions could be greater. Which is another debate. 

What I'm against are hidden momentum leaders or chakrabati calling for national action etc.  The only people it will damage are potential voters. Corbyn curiously chose Glasgow for a personal appearance, a safe bet where it's unlikely anyone will challenge his some what confused position on it all. 

Personal I think all parliamentary holidays should have been scrapped for the last 100 days before brexit, they should have been in work every day in one form or another. Yes, some will do constituency work but many will be keeping busy with their second jobs too or just holidaying.

You just couldn't imagine anything in any industry, this large or this critical occurring and offices shutting down here and there for holidays in the run up to it. 

I'm sorry, but I'm not at all sure you do understand the process if you think that the number of days lost is minimal. It's 5 days on the face of it, but around 15 days in practice because of the inability to carry over legislation, and the need to incorporate time for a Queen's speech and debate. Sorry if I didn't explain this clearly enough in my earlier post.

Good urgent legislation can easily get through parliament in 20 days. It's desperately tight in 5 days and that's why Boris has prorogued.

Martin

So you say but in keeping with a well developed pattern of saying one thing then cheering another when it comes to brexit here you are, apologist for Johnson's deliberately inhibiting parliament's ability to function properly. 

No. So remind me why you joined this thread to parrot Johnson's dissembling.

Jk

Why should they?  They may judge that given the referendum, and perhaps their constituents' views,  or their party policy,they shouldn't vote in line with their personal beliefs on this (or other matters).

How about you recognize it isn't a binary choice?

Never mind that Dominic Cummings only took the job on condition he could quit at midnight on Oct 30 so he could have surgery the next week.

The level of incompetence of this government is absolutely mind-blowing.

If you read the UK’s article 50 letter to the EU it is.

No, it isn't. 

Oh yes it is!

To return to the original post, ignoring any personal views one may have, that's a perfectly reasonable position isn't it? If legislation were drafted that utterly failed to achieve it's purpose, then why even bother drafting it? The words in statutes matter hugely. 

I, as an individual, choose when I follow legislation, with the understanding of what the consequences would be when caught. I'd suggest that the actual government, openly and publicly, picking and choosing what legislation to follow is not setting the best example, considering that they're the ones officially making it.

This is undoubtedly a coup. The current government has no mandate for the damage it is doing to the UK. We have an unelected PM who was put in place by 140,00 members of the Tory party. Which in turn has no majority. Using an advisory referendum result, based on illegality and misinformation, to justify ignoring parliament. They are amoral, corrupt and capable of pretty much anything. I don't think it is too dramatic to make comparisons with Germany in the 30's. 

I'm 38 years old and for the first ever time I'm considering who I'd call when I get arrested. Need to practice throwing.

In a country of nearly 70 million, the unclear views of 17.4m, are not grounds to destroy our economy and the opportunities for the next generation.

To put it more clearly, the size of the electorate in the referendum was 46.5m. 37.4% voted for Brexit. And that was the situation over 3 years ago.

But don't worry; it all looks great from here:

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1168267655628886017?s=20

A brilliant interview with a passionate John Major. From a few weeks ago, but all the more powerful now, given how things are developing:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m0006yxz/hardtalk-sir-john-major-form...

It's completely ambiguous but my first reading of this is we cannot leave against our constitutional requirements. So Article 50 would be cancelled if Boris is ignoring parliament

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

I guess they never thought a prime minister would ignore his own parliament when they wrote it