Voters in the poorest parts of the UK are also voters. You may not like their priorities after Brexit, but I doubt they will be willing to go and have a ride on your Singaporean unicorn.
Especially since everyone can see the unicorn you're peddling is actually a pig with a plastic cone glued on.
Congratulations America
And *pop* goes your Singapore Brexit. You seriously don't want to deal with reality at all do you?
Brexit is going to be absolutely horrible for you and your countrymen save for a few who are willing to speculate against their own country and who have enough money to cushion them from the suffering.
Congratulations America
In the US we say that's acting "too big for your britches". But it's still the arrogance of self-importance.
Brexit isn't important, and you think you can get special deals as a tiny independent nation? Sorry, but that's as delusional as UAW or UMWA workers thinking they can maintain the old status quo of auto and coal industrial powers, while the world shifts under their feet.
Naw, unbridled economic liberalism (which is what you're advocating here fore) ends in just the same toxic hellstew as everything else. But you sure seem to be hellbent on running your achievements right into the shitter - your NHS is already bearing the brunt of it.
Your farmers also won't be happy, increasing your dependance on food imports even more.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Here's thought for food: This whole thing was about "taking back control" and "sovereignty" and shit.
Now Johnson is poised to make an end-run around parliament to unilaterally enact a Hard Brexit if he doesn't get his will.
So, Rand, how is that compatible with taking back control?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Perfectly compatible.
The point of Brexit is that we the voters take back control because the MPs we elect will set our laws. The control only begins once we leave, if MPs refuse to actually exit we haven't regained control.
Furthermore proroguing Parliament (which happens annually and has been used for political purposes previously) doesn't change the law, it merely preserves the law as it is. So the only reason we will leave on 31 October if we do with Parliament prorogued will be because MPs previously voted to invoke Article 50 and MPs previously endorsed 31 October as the end date. If they weren't serious about it, they shouldn't have done that.
Randblade one month ago when Raab says he might prorogue parliament.
Randblade today, after suggestions that BoJo mght try exactly the same thing:
Randblade, why are you so unfairly biased against Dominic Raab?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
He's always been a Boris' bumboy.
Congratulations America
Raab didn't explain it well. Now I've had time to reflect on it, I was premature on Raab.
Reality is proroguing won't change a single law, it will only implement that which Parliament has voted for already. Plus proroguing has been used before, which I wasn't aware of when Raab suggested it, so my apologies.
Reality is Parliament has voted for leaving, Parliament has endorsed the date of 31 October. If we leave without a deal then that will be due to votes held in Parliament. Parliament hasn't exactly covered itself in glory here, they've had three chances to pass a deal and rejected it every single time. Parliament has also had multiple options to come up with alternatives and rejected every single alternative. They've rejected the deal, no deal, revocation, a referendum. All rejected repeatedly.
Parliament needs to be more serious than Vicky Pollard. If it can't be, then shutting it down for three weeks then re-opening after what it has already voted for has occured may not be the worst idea.
If you restrict parliament's authority to change its mind in this manner, you'll have thrown parliamentary sovereignty down the shitter. Parliament is not for your lying govt to "discipline" through cynical abuse. You don't get to set aside parliament just because it doesn't play along with your delusional fantasies. We don't do that sort of creepy authoritarian thing in the west anymore.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think the British constitution is a bit more complicated than that.
Congratulations America
The constitution may be as complex as you like, but it's become increasingly clear that the British govt and fanatic Brexiters hold constitutional principles in very low regard. What RB is endorsing is the view that a leader is justified in doing an end run around parliament in order to implement the will of the people, as that will is interpreted by its only legitimate representative (Glorious Leader Johnson).
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Nonsense. Parliament must have the right to undo or modify any decision it has made, on this and related matters.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Not just like that. This happens to be about Brexit which you don't like but it could also about something you really do like in which case you wouldn't be so certain about parliament being free to change its mind no matter what being desirable or even justifieable.
RandBlade is right about the fact that Brexit was endorsed twice at least by the British electorate. No Brexit would be a bigger violation of the mandate parliament has than a no deal Brexit.
What you effectively do is demanding that PMs vote ofollowing their personal convictions rather than what they promised their voters. The people who don't want a no deal brexit could have voted for the WA.
Congratulations America
I'm not saying it should be done lightly. However, if parliament is prorogued in this tactical fashion, it cannot be done at all--and that would undermine parliament's standing.
You're correct, I wouldn't, because that is a mischaracterization of my position. I am all for restrictions on parliaments changing their minds, for example when it comes to binding referendums, agreements with other countries, etc. Some restrictions are legal and many are simply political. But the UK takes pride in its parliament's absolute authority to change its mind on matters such as these.This happens to be about Brexit which you don't like but it could also about something you really do like in which case you wouldn't be so certain about parliament being free to change its mind no matter what being desirable or even justifieable.
You're free to believe this, as many do, but it is quite clearly a debatable issue that not only Remainers but also responsible Leavers have doubts about. The British electorate has not given Parliament a clear mandate to bring about a NDB. The mandate given by the referendum, to bring about any Brexit at all, was not legally binding. The snap election did not give any mandate for NDB. Parliament itself has not given itself a mandate for NDB, although it has certainly increased the likelihood of an NDB on walkover.RandBlade is right about the fact that Brexit was endorsed twice at least by the British electorate. No Brexit would be a bigger violation of the mandate parliament has than a no deal Brexit.
MPs are tasked with working in their constituents' best interests and they have been delegated the responsibility of determining what those interests are as well as what may be the best approach to furthering said interests. They are not tasked with thoughtlessly and automatically executing the poorly considered demands of fewer than half of their constituents. MPs must absolutely act in accordance with their own judgement, and voters are free to reward--or punish--the MPs that represent them, for that judgement, as are the parties they belong to (if any).What you effectively do is demanding that PMs vote ofollowing their personal convictions rather than what they promised their voters.
Coulda shoulda woulda.The people who don't want a no deal brexit could have voted for the WA.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely and completely agreed 100%. You know me, no Parliament can bind its successor and any decision made can ultimately be undone.
So once we've exited Parliament is entirely entitled to seek to rejoin.
Absolutely agreed. If we do no deal Brexit then they should look back at rejecting the WA and think 'what have I done?' They knew full well that a NDB was already set in law as the ultimate alternative.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I don't believe I've argued that the British parliament cannot legally change its mind about its own decisions, provided procedural & legal requirements have been met, certainly not over the extended duration of this thread. Now, it's possible that I may be misremembering my statements on this matter, but experience leads me to suspect it's more likely that you're misremembering something you've imagined me saying. Regardless, the British parliament can clearly change its mind about the things that are within its competency; my opinions about restrictions on that authority wrt international agreements are not in any way relevant to the issue of whether or not parliament can change internal laws.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I realize you think this is Very Clever, but it's really just a bit of dumbfuckery. The next parliament may indeed seek to overturn a decision made by the current parliament, but the current parliament may also effectively overturn a decision it has made itself. You don't have to wait for the next parliament.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Every branch of government in a democracy under the rule of law is bound by formal and informal rules. I'm not claiming to be an expert on British constitutional law but I have little to no doubt that the supremacy of parliament is not as absolute as stated in the doctrine. Parliament acting as if it weren't bound by any rule, but the majority in its own chambers, would no doubt be considered a constitutional crisis.
For Brexit not happening to have legitimacy you need more than playing the constitution to its breaking point.
Congratulations America
I'm not misremembering. You pissed all over the idea of parliamentary supremacy as a principle with any meaning or importance when Rand talked about treaties, even when there was no suggestion that withdrawal or abrogation would fail to follow procedural and legal requirements. And here there is also no suggestion that proroguing won't follow procedural & legal requirements but suddenly parliamentary supremacy is vital and acts which treat it dismissively (even if legal) are a terrible thing to contemplate.
It's just that whether parliamentary supremacy is something which anyone should care about in the slightest changes with the wind (or specifically, with whether you like the specific move being discussed, as Hazir outlined)Regardless, the British parliament can clearly change its mind about the things that are within its competency; my opinions about restrictions on that authority wrt international agreements are not in any way relevant to the issue of whether or not parliament can change internal laws.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I encourage you to reread what I actually said so that you can determine whether or not I really said what you imagined I said, and whether or not what I said is relevant to the matter being discussed right now. On a similar note, I have not suggested that proroguing parliament would be illegal; I have only suggested that proroguing parliament in order to prevent parliament from making a decision the govt disapproves of should be questionable from the perspective of anyone who is concerned with safeguarding parliament's authority, and I find it especially disconcerting to see such tactics being suggested by populists enamored with a decidedly creepy "will-of-the-people" rhetoric.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I don't dispute any of this, but nor do I see what bearing it has on the issue of proroguing parliament in order to prevent a potentially unsettling outcome. I also note that Brexit has already not happened, and also that the UK has over the past three years had to endure a number of extremely disturbing political shenanigans without having come undone.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Absolutely it can, I never said otherwise. It certainly can if it votes accordingly following its correct procedures. To do that would almost need an executive that would support that decision though, so Parliament needs to give Confidence to a PM who wants to take that path and not one that doesn't.
That the executive controls Parliaments agenda and sets down proroguations etc is well established so Parliament needs to give Confidence to a PM they are happy to use those powers and can withdraw Confidence from any potential or existing PM that Parliament doesn't like.
And yet there's no clear indication that the vast majority of the UK electorate do not want Brexit.
Congratulations America