5 ms·

Parliament is involved in the Brexit process, including through the Brexit Select Committee. Politicians from across different parties will have their say on ho

by ldjb 10y ago

Parliament is involved in the Brexit process, including through the Brexit Select Committee. Politicians from across different parties will have their say on how the UK leaves the EU. However, the British people have voted to leave the EU, and it would be an affront to democracy if the will of the people were denied by Parliament. It would be unacceptable for Parliament to vote against triggering Article 50, so why even vote if there is only one valid outcome?

nicolapede 10y ago
The referendum gave the What. Parliament would give the How and When.
- ldjb 10y ago
  The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work. I haven't heard Labour or other parties set out how they want Brexit to work, except the Lib Dems who don't want Brexit to happen at all. If the only plan for Brexit out there is the one the government has, then of course that's the one that is going to be implemented. Parliament does have the opportunity to influence that plan, though.
  - leonk 10y ago
    "The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work" Have they? I'd really like to see this.
    - ldjb 10y ago
      Yes, the government has said that Brexit means Brexit, meaning that the UK will exit the EU. There will be controls on immigration, but the UK will seek to maintain positive relationships with other European countries (and the rest of the world) and co-operate in matters such as security. Okay, they haven't quite spelt it out in the level of detail some would have liked, but they've provided more detail than other parties have, and I'm sure further details will emerge in due course.
      - leonk 10y ago
        I'd say this is more of a strategy than a plan. It's all pretty vague. It was the tories who called the referendum, and the tories who are currently dealing with Brexit. It's not Labour's job to come up with a plan (which would not get used anyway). All Labour have been trying to do is get details of the Tory (currently non-existent) plan, in order to be able to start a discussion on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-170-questions-full-list-brexit-eu-referendum-david-davis-theresa-may-uk-a7356841.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-170-que...
        ldjb 10y ago
        Labour, as the official opposition, are supposed to represent an alternative government. I think it's perfectly right to expect them to set out what they want from Brexit. However, they won't even answer any of the 170 questions they asked the government. I don't want the Conservative government to have a monopoly over deciding how Brexit is implemented. But if other parties want to have a say, then they do need to say what they want from Brexit! They need to take a more pro-active stance. Problem is that Labour is still rather divided, UKIP is literally beating itself up, and the Lib Dems (whilst united in opposing Brexit) are still rather weak. What we really need is a strong opposition, and unfortunately we don't have one right now.
        leonk 10y ago
        I do understand what you're saying, but I would say labour are representing an alternative government. One that would not have got us into the mess that we are currently in. One that would attempt to bridge the gap between the different groups across the uk (the gap that has been highlighted by the brexit vote).
      - youngtaff 10y ago
        But Brexit has never been defined (in terms of a government position on what it actually means in trade terms for example) , so saying Brexit means Brexit is pretty much nonsense!
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    > The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work the whole point is that the government does not get to decide. Even if, as it is likely, the parliament ends up voting for brexit, in the same bill it might constraint how the government is to conduct the negotiations.
Tomte 10y ago
You're already anticipating a "remain" vote by parliament. That's not on the table, so far. Parliament wants to be involved, not necessarily kill Brexit. You can come back with that argument if and when Parliament actually tries to stop Brexit.
- ldjb 10y ago
  My point is: If a "remain" vote is not on the table, then what's the point in voting? It seems like a pointless exercise. Parliament can be (and are) involved in the Brexit process, but there are plenty of other ways to do that than with this vote.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    The point of retaining the option for Parliament to veto Article 50 being invoked on a specific date is to ensure the MP for Maidenhead actually has to get their consent for the approach she chooses.
pmyteh 10y ago
Even as someone who is fanatically pro-EU, I think you're right about the affront to democracy bit. The remedy for the public is to 'throw the bastards out' at the next election if they feel sufficiently affronted. Or alternatively to have made the referendum self-executing - a clause could have been added to the 2015 referendum act giving Article 50 notification in the event of 'leave' winning. Of course, that ship has sailed. I feel pretty conflicted about this, given that I strongly prefer the 'not leave' option but also think the result of an (even advisory) referendum should be respected. That's the nature of a polity with Parliamentary sovereignty, though :-/
- ldjb 10y ago
  I agree that certain aspects of the referendum (both in terms of the Referendum Act and also the campaigning) were far from ideal. All the same, we're in the situation we're in, and everyone needs to look forward at how the UK can best proceed with Brexit, and not look backwards and try to overturn the referendum result (but of course I'd say that).
duckliffe 10y ago
Because parliamentary sovereignty, which is the entire basis of our political system? Treaties are required to be ratified by parliament as I understand it, and I personally feel that activating article 50 should stand on the same constitutional footing.

by ldjb 10y ago

nicolapede 10y ago

The referendum gave the What. Parliament would give the How and When.

ldjb 10y ago
The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work. I haven't heard Labour or other parties set out how they want Brexit to work, except the Lib Dems who don't want Brexit to happen at all. If the only plan for Brexit out there is the one the government has, then of course that's the one that is going to be implemented. Parliament does have the opportunity to influence that plan, though.
- leonk 10y ago
  "The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work" Have they? I'd really like to see this.
  - ldjb 10y ago
    Yes, the government has said that Brexit means Brexit, meaning that the UK will exit the EU. There will be controls on immigration, but the UK will seek to maintain positive relationships with other European countries (and the rest of the world) and co-operate in matters such as security. Okay, they haven't quite spelt it out in the level of detail some would have liked, but they've provided more detail than other parties have, and I'm sure further details will emerge in due course.
    - leonk 10y ago
      I'd say this is more of a strategy than a plan. It's all pretty vague. It was the tories who called the referendum, and the tories who are currently dealing with Brexit. It's not Labour's job to come up with a plan (which would not get used anyway). All Labour have been trying to do is get details of the Tory (currently non-existent) plan, in order to be able to start a discussion on it. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-170-questions-full-list-brexit-eu-referendum-david-davis-theresa-may-uk-a7356841.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-170-que...
      - ldjb 10y ago
        Labour, as the official opposition, are supposed to represent an alternative government. I think it's perfectly right to expect them to set out what they want from Brexit. However, they won't even answer any of the 170 questions they asked the government. I don't want the Conservative government to have a monopoly over deciding how Brexit is implemented. But if other parties want to have a say, then they do need to say what they want from Brexit! They need to take a more pro-active stance. Problem is that Labour is still rather divided, UKIP is literally beating itself up, and the Lib Dems (whilst united in opposing Brexit) are still rather weak. What we really need is a strong opposition, and unfortunately we don't have one right now.
        leonk 10y ago
        I do understand what you're saying, but I would say labour are representing an alternative government. One that would not have got us into the mess that we are currently in. One that would attempt to bridge the gap between the different groups across the uk (the gap that has been highlighted by the brexit vote).
    - youngtaff 10y ago
      But Brexit has never been defined (in terms of a government position on what it actually means in trade terms for example) , so saying Brexit means Brexit is pretty much nonsense!
- gpderetta 10y ago
  > The government has already set out how they want Brexit to work the whole point is that the government does not get to decide. Even if, as it is likely, the parliament ends up voting for brexit, in the same bill it might constraint how the government is to conduct the negotiations.

Tomte 10y ago

You're already anticipating a "remain" vote by parliament. That's not on the table, so far. Parliament wants to be involved, not necessarily kill Brexit. You can come back with that argument if and when Parliament actually tries to stop Brexit.

ldjb 10y ago
My point is: If a "remain" vote is not on the table, then what's the point in voting? It seems like a pointless exercise. Parliament can be (and are) involved in the Brexit process, but there are plenty of other ways to do that than with this vote.
- notahacker 10y ago
  The point of retaining the option for Parliament to veto Article 50 being invoked on a specific date is to ensure the MP for Maidenhead actually has to get their consent for the approach she chooses.

pmyteh 10y ago

Even as someone who is fanatically pro-EU, I think you're right about the affront to democracy bit. The remedy for the public is to 'throw the bastards out' at the next election if they feel sufficiently affronted. Or alternatively to have made the referendum self-executing - a clause could have been added to the 2015 referendum act giving Article 50 notification in the event of 'leave' winning. Of course, that ship has sailed. I feel pretty conflicted about this, given that I strongly prefer the 'not leave' option but also think the result of an (even advisory) referendum should be respected. That's the nature of a polity with Parliamentary sovereignty, though :-/

ldjb 10y ago
I agree that certain aspects of the referendum (both in terms of the Referendum Act and also the campaigning) were far from ideal. All the same, we're in the situation we're in, and everyone needs to look forward at how the UK can best proceed with Brexit, and not look backwards and try to overturn the referendum result (but of course I'd say that).

duckliffe 10y ago

Because parliamentary sovereignty, which is the entire basis of our political system? Treaties are required to be ratified by parliament as I understand it, and I personally feel that activating article 50 should stand on the same constitutional footing.