nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 25, 2022 19:29:06 GMT
I agree 2017 was not necessary. It was the result of opportunism on the part of Theresa May, leavened with a fair measure of hubris, and it got the outcome it deserved. But 2019 was absolutely necessary. There was a logjam at Westminster that was doing serious political damage and was beginning to harm the constitution. A GE was needed to clear that logjam and it succeeded in that.
The logjam existed because of the unwillingness of MPs to compromise on both sides, whereas the closeness of the referendum outcome indicated that compromise was exactly what was required - a soft Brexit, taking on board the outcome of the referendum but its close nature.
MPs should have recognised this, particularly on the remain side If they had not had the option of dissolving Parliament then that would have happened. This made me wonder if the result had been reversed 52% remain to 48% leave what 'compromise' would the Remainers offered to those on the other side?
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Mar 25, 2022 19:32:57 GMT
Leavers wouldn’t have accepted a compromise in the same way the #FBPE gang never accepted anything or showed any inclination too.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Mar 25, 2022 19:35:40 GMT
This is the problem. Because there was no real commitment to the principle of a fixed term and not having elections other than at the allocated time, we had two elections which should not have happened at all. I agree 2017 was not necessary. It was the result of opportunism on the part of Theresa May, leavened with a fair measure of hubris, and it got the outcome it deserved. But 2019 was absolutely necessary. There was a logjam at Westminster that was doing serious political damage and was beginning to harm the constitution. A GE was needed to clear that logjam and it succeeded in that.
Of course the govt should have planned for leave in advance of the referendum rather than sticking their heads in the sand and assuming it’ll all be ok and the Conservative Party should have outlined their leave method in 2017 rather than parroting “Brexit means Brexit”.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 25, 2022 19:49:53 GMT
The logjam existed because of the unwillingness of MPs to compromise on both sides, whereas the closeness of the referendum outcome indicated that compromise was exactly what was required - a soft Brexit, taking on board the outcome of the referendum but its close nature.
MPs should have recognised this, particularly on the remain side If they had not had the option of dissolving Parliament then that would have happened. This made me wonder if the result had been reversed 52% remain to 48% leave what 'compromise' would the Remainers offered to those on the other side? But that was the status quo so it's not the same situation. It's clear enough ( and I was hardly an arch remainer) that there has been very little benefit to leaving other than meaningless nonsense such as "sovereignty"
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,726
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Mar 25, 2022 21:18:38 GMT
The logjam existed because of the unwillingness of MPs to compromise on both sides, whereas the closeness of the referendum outcome indicated that compromise was exactly what was required - a soft Brexit, taking on board the outcome of the referendum but its close nature.
MPs should have recognised this, particularly on the remain side If they had not had the option of dissolving Parliament then that would have happened. This made me wonder if the result had been reversed 52% remain to 48% leave what 'compromise' would the Remainers offered to those on the other side? The Remainiacs would have seen it as justification for full-throttle subsumation into a European super-state, and would have torpedo'd any attempt to get any other form of Remain through Parliament. It would be the mirror image of the Brexit fanatics.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 25, 2022 22:25:42 GMT
This made me wonder if the result had been reversed 52% remain to 48% leave what 'compromise' would the Remainers offered to those on the other side? But that was the status quo so it's not the same situation. It's clear enough ( and I was hardly an arch remainer) that there has been very little benefit to leaving other than meaningless nonsense such as "sovereignty" But you see what i was trying to get at?Ie if it was close result the other way would the Remainers accept giving something to the Leavers to 'bring people together'. Even with 48% leave some serious soul searching might have been needed by the Remainers about why such a large minority voted to Leave.
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Mar 25, 2022 22:41:17 GMT
But that was the status quo so it's not the same situation. It's clear enough ( and I was hardly an arch remainer) that there has been very little benefit to leaving other than meaningless nonsense such as "sovereignty" But you see what i was trying to get at?Ie if it was close result the other way would the Remainers accept giving something to the Leavers to 'bring people together'. Even with 48% leave some serious soul searching might have been needed by the Remainers about why such a large minority voted to Leave. I completely agree. I think there would have almost certainly have been a move towards something along the lines of "levelling up" in the areas voting Leave. Bear in mind that Cameron would have presumably remained as PM and would have had four years of mandate to go, with a fair degree of fiscal freedom at that point (with a reduced deficit from 2010-15 and no Covid.) Osborne would have gone heavy on Northern Powerhouse. I don't think there would have been a willingness to make many changes on actual Europe policy because (a) Remainers in all parties would have argued that the decision was final and would be free from another challenge (b) even today many are in denial that there was any genuine problem with EU membership and blame the Leave vote on propaganda swallowed by the gullible. This would be doubled down on if Leave had lost and frankly I don't know if there is anything Brexiters could do about it.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 25, 2022 22:46:42 GMT
But that was the status quo so it's not the same situation. It's clear enough ( and I was hardly an arch remainer) that there has been very little benefit to leaving other than meaningless nonsense such as "sovereignty" But you see what i was trying to get at?Ie if it was close result the other way would the Remainers accept giving something to the Leavers to 'bring people together'. Even with 48% leave some serious soul searching might have been needed by the Remainers about why such a large minority voted to Leave. I suppose the question is what - given that we already had many concessions from the EU. Not in Schengen, not in the Euro, rebates....I have always been clear that wanting to leave was a heart not a head thing for those who wanted it, but I'm yet to see any obvious benefits. It's not as if a government ranting on about global Britain is going to be protectionist!
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Mar 26, 2022 21:21:43 GMT
I'm generally a fan of the Coalition government, and consider it one of the best Administrations in my lifetime. But the FTPA was a stupid idea then and a stupid idea now, and two thirds of the time it didn't even fucking do what it was supposed to do.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 26, 2022 21:35:49 GMT
I'm generally a fan of the Coalition government, and consider it one of the best Administrations in my lifetime. But the FTPA was a stupid idea then and a stupid idea now, and two thirds of the time it didn't even fucking do what it was supposed to do.this
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 26, 2022 21:37:28 GMT
I'm just pleased to see the end of fixed term parliaments and still having fptp!
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 26, 2022 22:14:52 GMT
I'm just pleased to see the end of fixed term parliaments and still having fptp! I mean, we are so lucky to have such an excellent choice of competent government and democratic representation in consequence. And pigs can fly and the earth is flat.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 26, 2022 22:16:30 GMT
I'm generally a fan of the Coalition government, and consider it one of the best Administrations in my lifetime. But the FTPA was a stupid idea then and a stupid idea now, and two thirds of the time it didn't even fucking do what it was supposed to do. Nothing wrong with the idea, but it wasn't executed properly, and doesn't work with parties obsessed with majoritarian politics without gaining actual majorities.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Mar 26, 2022 22:37:03 GMT
I'm just pleased to see the end of fixed term parliaments and still having fptp! I mean, we are so lucky to have such an excellent choice of competent government and democratic representation in consequence. And pigs can fly and the earth is flat. Are you pro-PR Merseymike? Can't remember if you've mentioned it before.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 26, 2022 23:26:22 GMT
I mean, we are so lucky to have such an excellent choice of competent government and democratic representation in consequence. And pigs can fly and the earth is flat. Are you pro-PR Merseymike? Can't remember if you've mentioned it before. he is
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 26, 2022 23:40:53 GMT
I still wish there was more clarity on whether the monarch can refuse the PM’s dissolution request if he or she has already lost the confidence of Commons and is acting in bad faith. See the Lascelles Principles. In South Africa in 1939 Sir Patrick Duncan denied a dissolution to Hertzog on the grounds there was an alternative government available in the existing Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 27, 2022 0:05:54 GMT
Leavers wouldn’t have accepted a compromise in the same way the #FBPE gang never accepted anything or showed any inclination too. Maybe it wouldn't have been accepted but would anything have been offered? I mean in 2014 did everyone on the No side just shrug and go "55% is 55%, all we'll offer is a bin for you to chuck Alex Salmond in"?
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Mar 27, 2022 0:12:15 GMT
See the Lascelles Principles. In South Africa in 1939 Sir Patrick Duncan denied a dissolution to Hertzog on the grounds there was an alternative government available in the existing Parliament. In 1926 the Governor-General of Canada refused a dissolution requested by Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King. The government had lost seats in the 1925 election and there was a hung Parliament, but it stayed in office until defeated on a motion of confidence. The Governor-General took the view that the opposition Conservatives should be given the chance to try to form a government (it was doubtful that they would succeed), and noted that King had agreed the previous year not to seek another dissolution without giving them that chance. So King resigned, the Conservatives came in, promptly lost a vote of confidence, and a dissolution was granted. The Liberals won back most of the ground lost in 1925 and came back into office. Byng couldn't foresee that the Progressives were highly flakey or that Meighen was as bad as King for playing fast and loose with the rules by trying to postpone the ministerial vacancies that there were then still the law by only appointing acting ministers. I think the whole affair has shown the monarch/GG needs a firmer reading of the political situation - in 1941 in Australia Lord Gowrie personally consulted the two crossbenchers before commissioning Curtin after Fadden's Deluge.
|
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,077
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Mar 27, 2022 13:37:56 GMT
I'm just pleased to see the end of fixed term parliaments and still having fptp! I mean, we are so lucky to have such an excellent choice of competent government and democratic representation in consequence. And pigs can fly and the earth is flat. Not sure how PR automatically leads to competent government!
|
|
|
Post by islington on Mar 27, 2022 14:43:57 GMT
In 1926 the Governor-General of Canada refused a dissolution requested by Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King. The government had lost seats in the 1925 election and there was a hung Parliament, but it stayed in office until defeated on a motion of confidence. The Governor-General took the view that the opposition Conservatives should be given the chance to try to form a government (it was doubtful that they would succeed), and noted that King had agreed the previous year not to seek another dissolution without giving them that chance. So King resigned, the Conservatives came in, promptly lost a vote of confidence, and a dissolution was granted. The Liberals won back most of the ground lost in 1925 and came back into office. Byng couldn't foresee that the Progressives were highly flakey or that Meighen was as bad as King for playing fast and loose with the rules by trying to postpone the ministerial vacancies that there were then still the law by only appointing acting ministers. I think the whole affair has shown the monarch/GG needs a firmer reading of the political situation - in 1941 in Australia Lord Gowrie personally consulted the two crossbenchers before commissioning Curtin after Fadden's Deluge. Regarding the Hertzog case in SA: I think (but it's only my assessment) that Lascelles has probably moved on a little here, in that the Hertzog government had previously enjoyed Parliamentary confidence. I suspect that nowadays, in the UK, such a gov't would be granted a GE if it wanted one, even if it were clearly possible to form an alternative gov't with a majority in the present House. The way I've heard this expressed is that 'every government has a right of appeal from one House of Commons to the next'. This doesn't seem an unreasonable rule, provided it applies only to a government that previously enjoyed (even it has since lost) the express or implied confidence of the HoC that it now wishes to dissolve.
Arguably, though, both in 1939 in SA and in 1941 in Australia the wartime situation made it more important than it normally would be to avoid a GE. Either or both of these might have been decided differently if similar circumstances had arisen in peacetime.
The Canada precedent of 1925-26 I think still makes sense. It's fair for a HoC to reject one government but a HoC that has rejected two has probably signed its own death warrant and it's hard to see any alternative to a GE in such circumstances.
Feb 1974 in the UK is another interesting case. Ted Heath dissolved sixteen months early to try to capitalize on the miners' strike. The ploy failed and Labour emerged as narrowly the largest party, although short of a majority. After an unsuccessful attempt to coax the Liberals into a coalition (which would have had more seats than Labour, although still not a majority), Heath resigned and Harold Wilson became PM and put a Queen's Speech to the new Parliament. There was a good deal of speculation about the constitutional position if Wilson lost the QS vote. He made it clear that in such an event he would seek a dissolution and it was reported in the papers that Buckingham Palace had indicated it would be granted. I presume the Lascelles rationale here is that where a gov't resigns after losing a GE, that is in effect a resignation occasioned by losing the confidence of the House (even if the House has not yet met) and the LotO therefore takes over with implied confidence.
Anyway, with some deft Wilsonian manoeuvring the QS was voted through so the matter was never put to the test. Having won that vote, Wilson then enjoyed the express confidence of the House and thus he was entitled to the GE he sought later in the year.
|
|