3504

Yes. You can’t put major policy votes to referendum if you allow the vote to be swayed by Big Lie tactics, and if you don’t work against foreign propaganda. Conditions for a corrupt vote were put in place by the Conservatives and tacitly supported by Labour. The whole thing was a disgraceful farce arising from a Conservative party power struggle that Labour thought it could exploit. Since a new referendum would be subject to the same conditions including a generation of know-nothing voters whose ignorance was encouraged by successive elitist governments of both parties, there’s no point to it at all.

3505

I’m glad you agree the EU treaties are undemocratic.

Not that that’s a categorical condemnation of them, but the fact that there’s no way to change or get out of an EU treaty short of:

a) Exit, or
b) Unanimous agreement of all EU states

Does rather point out the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the entire enterprise.

(on further consideration most of the effect of EU treaties is in terms of delegating powers up to the EU, which are then wielded in a quasi-democratic way through QMV and Europarl. It’s still all deeply unsatisfactory though. The only real fix is much tighter integration and a true European demos, but the national populations don’t want that. So it is what it is).

3506

Don’t you see that if the elites weren’t so intent on sabotaging Brexit (mainly to ensure freedom of movement for the lizard people) they’d conduct a proper negotiation with Jerry and the Frogs, who when faced with genuine British resolve would be so terrified of losing trade access to Britain that they would give Britain a deal that is just like membership, except no free movement and Britain can make independent trade deals with other countries.

3507

I think the problem is they are being widely represented as having some kind of legal force, whereas really they are “would you kindly try to prevent this thing we do not like”.

Since you’re talking about constitutional points it’s important to remember Parliament does not have the power to instruct the government. Parliament is advising the government of its preferences (which may be highly relevant when in comes to what legislation parliament is willing to pass).

Parliament does of course have the power to remove and replace the government, but that’s a whole different ball game.

3508

Quite. The endless denunciations by the fringe of May as a some kind of traitor in league with Tusk are just baffling to me.

3509

OK, yes, I was compressing the truth. “Instructing” in the sense expressing a preference backed up by the threat of a) blocking the government’s own agenda and b) asking the Crown to appoint a new government, neither of which look theoretical at this point.

3510

That is itself a process determined by representative democracy. It’s like saying Alabama can’t change Federal law so Federal law is undemocratic.

3511

Also, you know, the treaties have in fact changed several times. About once every five years until recently, in fact, not counting minor protocols.

3512

At some point Tusk is going to get the credit in the UK he deserves for being the only senior figure during the entire Brexit process who actually has been representing interests of the UK’s citizens. He isnt even one of us and he has done more than May/Corbyn.

3513

Perhaps the ground will want to be friends?

3514

Ha! Instead we keep seeing May’s deal return for vote after vote, and the only thing passing through our minds is “oh no, not again”.

3515

Nothing passing so far. No deal. No no deal. No referendum. No indicative votes.

3516

I am hoping Bercow loses his shit at some point and starts allowing votes on dissolving the UK or painting all streets pink, for the lols.

3517

Wow I was really passing the Benn amendment to pass. 314-312. It doesn’t get much closer than that.

Alot of respect for the Wollaston amendment. No pussyfooting around, just “This is what we want”. Compare to the vagueness of the Labour amendment.

Of course the Wollaston amendment only got 85 votes… :(

EDIT: And the house is 2 -1 in favour of kicking the can as far down the road(*) as possible. There’s a surprise.

(*: Although of course the can kicking will depend on the EU going along with it)

EDIT2: Contrary to some of the reporting, the motion doesn’t specify the length of the extension UNLESS the May deal passes. This lets May threaten the ERG with a 21 month extension. That won’t persuade the DUP though, and she needs those votes too.

3518

To be fair probably the most rational choice available right now. Buy time and figure out who is going to be in charge for Brexit take two. It aint gonna be May. She must resign after this surely.

Mrs May says Brexit could be delayed by three months, to 30 June, if MPs back her withdrawal deal in a vote next week.

Christ on a bike she is utterly deluded. She is STILL banging on about her rejected deal? The fuck is wrong with her?

3519

May isn’t going until after this is settled(*), unless someone can force a GE.

(*: For definitions of settled meaning “We are outside the EU, but still stuck in endless negotiations about everything”)

3520

Could Mays undead deal rise again from the grave?
Parliament have ruled out no deal, 2nd ref, Labours wishy-washy hand-wavey “we’ll negotiate a better deal”. What is left?
Long delay (but with no plan)
Mays deal

3521

Then the government has no leadership. This is on the Conservatives, they had a chance to change to someone competent and they voted to keep her. Now they are stuck with her for ten months or until she resigns.

3522

Making it “May’s deal or 21 month extension” probably gets her up to 300 votes right there.

It’s not enough, but today is a genuine tactical victory for May.

3523

May won’t resign. If she was the type to resign when humiliated, she would have resigned a long time ago. And the party won’t make her, because there really no one else who commands more support.

And with Labour being the hot mess that they are, there’s no outside political pressure that would force the Tories to reconsider, either.