brexit?!!?

[ahinton]

Here are some thoughts that I've seen expressed on another forum, ending with a letter from a senior and widely respected UK academic, Prof. Anthony Grayling.

__________________

An interesting letter in todays Guardian offering an answer to Scotland's & Northern Ireland's problem of being forced out of the EU – England and Wales secede from the UK, leaving Scotland and Northern Ireland (and Gibraltar and the Channel Islands?) remaining as the UK. As such they can hold another referendum (if necessary) which will result in 'Remain' so they simply stay in the EU as the UK. England and Wales aren’t interested in being in the EU so they won't have the problems of negotiating entry as a new country.

So simple.

__________________

Just for those who haven't had time to look at Michael Dougan's video, an excerpt:

"Unlike the Remain campaign, most of the Leave campaign's key arguments were based on constitutional and legal issues and therefore it's relatively easy for a constitutional lawyer like me to investigate and to evaluate the main planks of what the Leave campaign had to say.

And on that basis I really do have no hesitation whatsoever in concluding that Leave conducted one of the most dishonest political campaigns this country has ever seen … on virtually every major issue that was raised in this referendum debate, Leave’s arguments consisted of, at best, misrepresentations and, at worst, outright deception."

But as all politicians lie, apparently in democratic terms they cancel each other out and it's still 'democracy'.
__________________

Great piece by Nick Cohen in The Guardian last Saturday, with a brilliant Kipling quote:

I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?

Dougan divided his analysis into 3 strands, 1) the constitutional/legal claims of Leave that were either misrepresentations or lies, 2) the promises made that couldn’t be delivered and 3) the rubbishing of any 'experts' who warned against leaving the EU, including accusations that he himself was somehow in the pay of the EU.
_________________________

The French President is saying that Brexit cannot be cancelled or delayed. Apologies if I'm wrong about this, but I was under the impression that no such request had, or has been, made by Her Majesty's Government. All there has been is a referendum which has no legal basis. All that is happening at present is an internal UK problem.

The new Prime Minister, once in place, must allow Parliament to vote on the issue. If that results in a rejection of the referendum result then it should be annulled and Article 50 never invoked. The PM would have the choice of whether to hold a second referendum or accept the will of Parliament. If Parliament vote for Brexit, then so be it.

Is there anything constitutionally wrong here?
_____________________________

Prompted, it seems, by his students, Prof. Anthony (A.C.) Grayling, Master of the New College of the Humanities, has written the following letter, delivered by hand by two NCH students to all 650 MPs at Parliament this morning, 1 July 2016.

At the urging of many of my students – who come both from the United Kingdom and the European Union – and my own conscience, I write to you to express a respectful but strongly held view that, for the reasons set out below, Parliament should not support a motion to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. It is within your democratic remit and duty as a Member of our Parliament to vote on whether to initiate that procedure. By voting not to do so, you will keep the UK in the EU.

The non-binding referendum, its circumstances, and its slim majority achieved in those circumstances, is not an adequate ground for the UK to leave the EU.

The relevant factors and reasons are as follows.

In order for the UK to begin the process of leaving the EU, Parliament has to vote in favour of invoking Article 50. It is possible that complex constitutional issues might have to be settled in advance of such a vote, for example repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act. This is a matter that legal expertise is required to settle. But the key matter in the end is a vote on whether to initiate the Article 50 procedure.

Parliament as presently constituted has a substantial majority in favour of remaining in the EU. Given the following factors:
•   that the referendum was advisory only and non-binding,
•   that the majority for 'Brexit' was small (3.8%),
•   that there are major questions about the circumstances of the respective Remain and especially Leave campaigns regarding probity of information, claims and promises made to voters,
•   that a serious risk of break-up of the UK impends upon a ‘Brexit,’
•   that the economic consequences of a ‘Brexit’ are not in the UK’s favour,
•   that a 'Brexit' would damage our neighbours and partners in Europe,
•   and that the future of the young of our country is focally implicated in the decision

For all these reasons and more, there is a powerful case for Parliament to use its discretion to determine that it is not in the UK's interests to leave the EU.

No doubt this will cause anxiety among those MPs who think that a simple majority in a referendum confers a moral, even though not legal, obligation to treat the referendum outcome as prescriptive and binding. This is far from being so, for the following reasons.

First, in most jurisdictions major constitutional change requires a supermajority or two-thirds majority to effect them (as e.g. in the USA and Germany), whether in a legislature or in referendums. In Switzerland, which alone among developed nations employs frequent referendums in its 'semi-direct' democracy, major decisions require a double majority of the electorate and the cantons.

For a very major change such as exiting the EU, it is not acceptable to have matters decided by a small simple majority. So great a change requires a significant degree of genuine consensus, at the minimum such as a 60% majority would reflect.

Second, a referendum is in essence a decision by crowd acclamation. You will of course well understand that there is an excellent reason why most advanced and mature polities do not have systems of 'direct democracy' but instead have systems of representative democracy, in which legislators are not delegates sent by their constituents but agents tasked and empowered to investigate, debate and decide on behalf of their constituents. This reason is that rule by crowd acclamation is a very poor method of government.

Consider: suppose that every item of proposed legislation were decided by referendums, which would therefore occur very frequently. Bills on health and safety in manufacturing industry, on reform of higher education, on the use of chemicals in water treatment plants, on regulation of air traffic over the nation's airports – bills proposed by government and drafted in detail by civil servants – would be presented to the public, who would then vote. Would that work?

Very obviously, not. The expertise, patience and time that most of the public could bring to the task would be extremely limited; the lack of expertise, especially, would be a serious, perhaps disastrous, handicap. And very soon turnouts in referendums would plummet to single figures, rendering their democratic value nugatory.

Now I beg: really do consider the implications of the foregoing thought. Referendums are snapshots of sentiment at a given point in time. Government by referendum is government by crowd acclamation: not democracy, but ochlocracy. That is exactly why we have representative democracy. If referendums would be a poor way to decide on health and safety, air traffic control, or education, they are an exceedingly poor way to decide a matter as momentous as membership of the EU. This is and should be a matter for Parliament, taking all factors into account.

Moreover: the circumstances of the campaigns and the consequences of the vote itself must be considered. There was a great deal of misinformation, distortion, and false promises, much of it quickly revealed in the immediate aftermath of the vote, and resiled upon even by those who had made those claims and promises. Tabloid urgings for Brexit were followed, in the very same tabloids, immediately after the vote by information on its consequences which shocked readers. We have seen much reported about the post-vote regrets of people who had voted for 'Brexit' – including some high-profile individuals who before the vote had been urging it in their newspapers.

These factors add up to this: that there are grave doubts about whether the basis on which votes were cast, especially among many who voted for 'Brexit, are good grounds for Members of Parliament to resign their competence and duty to consider whether the UK should leave the EU. On the contrary: these considerations make it all the more imperative that Parliament should exercise its sovereign responsibility in the matter.

There is a formal online petition requesting a second referendum. If this petition is genuine and not the result of fraudulent computer hacking, it is the most extraordinary phenomenon: as I write these words it stands, only a few days after the vote itself, at over four million signatures [almost 4.1m at last glance, actually]. However, if Parliament were to exercise its responsibility in voting down a proposal to trigger the Article 50 procedure, no second referendum would be necessary.

Some have suggested that a following general election, in which each MP made clear his or her standpoint on Remain or Leave, would provide a definitive conclusion to Parliament’s decision on the matter. However this is not constitutionally necessary: Parliament is sovereign: an election would merely prolong uncertainty.

One of the most important reasons why Parliament must take a bold sovereign stand on the outcome of this small-majority advisory referendum, is the interests of the young. We know that the Remain and Leave votes divided along the fault lines of age, educational level, and geography. There is every reason to urge that the wishes and interests of the young – the younger, more aspirational creators of the country's future – should be given most weight. Parliament should protect those interests and respect those wishes. Some say that any among the young who could vote but did not, have only themselves to blame. This argument will not do. Those young people might have legitimately thought that their elders would not be so foolish as to betray the future by a 'Brexit' vote. But punishing them with a 'Brexit' is not the right response. The sober judgment of Parliament should be on their side.

You might think that Parliament’s discretion not to trigger the Article 50 procedure would leave matters hanging in the air, with continued uncertainty and the instability and political upheaval that it would bring.

Not so.

In debating and voting on whether to trigger the Article 50 procedure, it can be made clear that Parliament has noted

•   the outcome of the advisory referendum,
•   the small size of the majority of actual votes cast (thus, not the majority of the electorate),
•   the circumstances of the campaigns,
•   the consequences both already actual and in prospect, for the future interest, unity and prosperity of the UK and
•   the impact on our neighbours in Europe:

and that it is exercising its democratic duty to take a view and to vote accordingly. If the vote is to not trigger the 'Brexit' procedure, our partners in Europe can be informed and normality can be restored.

The EU is flawed and has problems. But as a powerful member of one of the three great blocs in the world, the UK can do much to help it get better, and to work within it to help all its members realize the great ideals of peace, prosperity and co-operation for which the EU exists.

Let us not absent ourselves from this beautiful endeavour. Let us not injure it by refusing to be part of it, thereby also damaging ourselves and the hopes of our young.

Please – you have both the ability and the duty to use your own discretion in this matter. I very respectfully urge you to use the first and obey the second. The future truly depends on it.

Yours sincerely,

Professor A. C. Grayling
Master of the College


I don't doubt that there are plenty of others who are considering or airing such thoughts.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The chance of another female Prime Minister is extremely positive

Well, no reason why not, of course. Nicola Sturgeon, peut-être?

There's irony in the fact that a far greater proportion of MPs support Remain than appears to be the case with the electorate (but then MPs wouldn't be as susceptible to being duped as was the general voting populace); that irony is perhaps all the greater because the person tipped to succeed Mr Cameron - a woman, you'll doubtless be pleased to find - is also a Remain supporter (and I believe that she's the longest serving UK Home Secretary since the 19th century)...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I have started on your long post and expect to finish sometime in the next Century.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit as the old saying goes and if you are quoting from that leftist moron sheet called the Guardian, that saying almost certainly applies.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Well, no reason why not, of course. Nicola Sturgeon, peut-être?

She would be better off reforming the Krankies as that is about her level.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

that irony is perhaps all the greater because the person tipped to succeed Mr Cameron - a woman, you'll doubtless be pleased to find - is also a Remain supporter (and I believe that she's the longest serving UK Home Secretary since the 19th century)...

And what a strong supporter of Remain she was (not). I am just adding up the speeches she gave during the campaign and I have stopped at one if i am not mistaken.

She at least has the sense to propose that the minister responsible for severing ties with the EU should be from the Brexit side. Or course, Bliar disagrees and appears to be interested himself, but hopefully he will be in heading for impeachment and prison when the Chilcott report comes out.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have started on your long post and expect to finish sometime in the next Century.

The bad news there is that you must be a very slow reader; the good news, however, is that you will have a very long life!

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit as the old saying goes

That saying's of no use to me here, since I've done neither.

and if you are quoting from that leftist moron sheet called the Guardian, that saying almost certainly applies.

Most of what I quoted was actually from a letter from Prof. A. C. Grayling that's been addressed and hand delivered to every MP in Westminster yesterday morning, but then I would not have expected to to appreciate that as the length of time that you expect to take in reading the post as a whole implied that, so far, you've probably not gotten beyond the first word or two.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

And what a strong supporter of Remain she was (not). I am just adding up the speeches she gave during the campaign and I have stopped at one if i am not mistaken.

I don't know - and in any case I didn't say that I favour her (or indeed any of the other four) as Cameron's successor.

She at least has the sense to propose that the minister responsible for severing ties with the EU should be from the Brexit side.

That makes sense insofar as it goes, but we'll have to see if she offers such an appointment in the first place andthat will depend very much upon whether Parliament decides to proceed or not.

Of course, Bliar disagrees and appears to be interested himself, but hopefully he will be in heading for impeachment and prison when the Chilcott report comes out.

And look how long that will have taken! I daresay that this appallingly long awaited report will divert at least some attention away from the post-referendum blues! Yes, a very long holiday in den Haag awaits, hopefully (although I'm not holding my breath).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

She would be better off reforming the Krankies as that is about her level.

They've never shaken hands with HM the Queen, though, have they? I imagine that it must have been very difficult for her to open the fifth session of the Scottish Parliament after all that's been gond on of late there and elsewhere; she was her customary model of circumspection but must nevertheless be extremely worried about the fact of UK.

And how I see that even the Welsh, for all that they voted Leave (albeit only just), are calling for independence from UK. I can't see all of that happening (although the letter from which I quoted a reference in which it is posited instead that England and Wales - well, OK, perhaps only England now - secedes from UK and leaves the remainder of what once was UK an EU member state or group thereof in its/their own right/s might just have some kilometrage in it...

Parliament declaring that all bets are off is increasingly looking to be the only sensible way forward.

I suppose that, if all else fails and Brexit proceedings commence, it remains open to all (corporations and small businesses as well as individuals) who oppose it simply to break the law once it's over and conduct themselves as though it never happened; again, not the most likely outcome, but not impossible either.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Parliament declaring that all bets are off is increasingly looking to be the only sensible way forward.

That would be monumentally stupid and undemocratic. The fact that Bliar thinks it should be considered is more than sufficient to submit that it would be an extremely dangerous thing to do and would distance the establishment from the people for a generation.

What is done is done and the job now is to stop moaning, stop the silly doom and gloom show and extracate ourselves from this EU mafia.

Thal

[ahinton]

That would be monumentally stupid and undemocratic. The fact that Bliar thinks it should be considered is more than sufficient to submit that it would be an extremely dangerous thing to do and would distance the establishment from the people for a generation.

It would be neither; what's truly undemocratic is the entire history of the thing - no one asked for it, premise wrong and all the rest. I don't give a monkeys what Bliar thinks and, frankly, he has even more cheek than I'd previously have given him credit for if he really believes that people would engage him (especially at his astronomical fees for getting out of bed) to manage this kind of thing.

Your point about distancing the establishment from the people is a good one, on at least two counts; the first is that the result is widely believed to be that of a protest vote against the establishment (whatever that might be) and the second is that already the result has exposed such a distance between the two in that a far greater proportion of MPs than voters support Remain.

What is done is done

But that's the trouble (or at least part thereof); nothing's been done apart from the holding of a referendum that has no legal validity and has yielded a tiny majority that repesnets nowhere near half of UK's electorate; nothing has been done in Parliament itself (which is the only place where anything can be done if it's going to be done - the result and much more besides has been known for almost nine days, yet nothing's been done in the House of Commons to move anything forwards or backwards on this - indeed, the dilatoriness and coyness over this has so far been its most notable feature.

and the job now is to stop moaning, stop the silly doom and gloom show and extracate ourselves from this EU mafia.

The job now is firstly to elect Cameron's successor and sort out the humungous mess into which the whole business has gotten the Labour Party otherwise there'll be no cerdible government capable of - and with any kind of credible mandate to - do anything. After that, do bear in mind that even some Leavers are suggesting that invoking Article 50 be postponed until after the next scheduled General Election is held (2020) and, given that others have estimated that the entire extrication process could take at least five years, even the now delayed HS2 project might be completed before Brexit is. At worst, it could drag on and on until the latter part of the next decade - and even that's only if, in the meantime, Parliament stll hasn't called a halt to it all (and I suspect that the longer it all gets postponed the greater the appetite will be to put it all out to grass).

Anyway, do you not think that there might be some kind of inherent connection between "monumentally stupid" and the actions and inactions of the House of Commons?

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

Wow if there was this much discussion on piano related topics this forum might still be good lol.

[ahinton]

Wow if there was this much discussion on piano related topics this forum might still be good lol.

It's only been 160 posts; there must surely have been plenty of piano related issues that have attracted far more posts than that!

That said, the possible disintegration of UK and the inflicton of long lasting damage on Western Europe arising from the foolish and ill-considered actions of UK is without doubt a topic well worthy of concerned discussion.

Best,

Alistair

[hardy_practice]

I've failed to be surprised by anything the UK electorate has done since they voted in Margaret Thatcher.  A constituency gets what it deserves.

[goldentone]

Long live a free Britain.

[ahinton]

Long live a free Britain.

A whole lot of effort is going to need to be made soon in order to effect that, but there sadly seems to be scant appetite for it at present.

Best,

Alistair

[lostinidlewonder]

It's only been 160 posts; there must surely have been plenty of piano related issues that have attracted far more posts than that!

Not recently really.

[thalbergmad]

Not recently really.

Sadly true old chap, so why don't you start one and I lets try and beat 160 posts.

How about "Am i ready for the Fantasy Impromptu".

Thal

[thalbergmad]

Long live a free Britain.

Well said old boy. 

[thalbergmad]

It's only been 160 posts; there must surely have been plenty of piano related issues that have attracted far more posts than that!

Actually, I have just whizzed through the repertoire section and it has been almost a year since that last happened.

Thal

[ahinton]

Sadly true old chap, so why don't you start one and I lets try and beat 160 posts.

How about "Am i ready for the Fantasy Impromptu".

That's the trouble; the "suggestion" that you make here is all too typical of the kind of thing that gets posted there.

Another, of course, is "What's the hardest peece ever ritten for piano?" when all intelligent members here should already know that it's Anna Magdalena Bach's Minuet in G.

So maybe let's get back to the topic and consider exploring which current members of the UK Parliament can play the piano and whether any of them might already be members here; you never know, Theresa may, although I suspect that Jeremy Hunt is too busy going after Liam Fox.

In the meantime, if we have to think about the Fantaisie-Impromptu, let's at least have some discussion of Busoni's transcription of it for banjo.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I've failed to be surprised by anything the UK electorate has done since they voted in Margaret Thatcher.  A constituency gets what it deserves.

Perhaps that migfht be taken to be an illustration of Terry Pratchett's observation (in his Discworld novel Maskerade) that "the IQ of a mob is the IQ of its most stupid member divided by the number of mobsters"...

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Interesting article.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9c1f-Free-movement-in-the-EU-actually-means-free-exploitation

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It's only been 160 posts; there must surely have been plenty of piano related issues that have attracted far more posts than that!

I certainly have seen audition room threads longer than that. Perhaps I shall solicit michael sayers' opinion on Brexit 

[ahinton]

Interesting article.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/a-9c1f-Free-movement-in-the-EU-actually-means-free-exploitation

Is it? It's hardly atypical of its source which conveniently forgets that neither free movement of labour nor its absence prevents exploitation, free or otherwise; it's therefore little more than a window dressing of irrelevance. Neither zero hours contracts nor failing to pay or underpaying people for their work nor the interference with or wholesale destruction of people's pensions nor any one of a vast number of other anomalies that afflict the workplace and people in it are dependent upon or adversely affected by membership of EU - they all happen anyway and will continue to do so whether or not Brexit actually happens.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I certainly have seen audition room threads longer than that. Perhaps I shall solicit michael sayers' opinion on Brexit 

Oh, purLEEEEEEESE don't do that! (he's not in any case based in EU as far as I know).

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I believe MS is in Stockholm.

[ahinton]

I believe MS is in Stockholm.

As do I, but I don't see that this should make any difference...

Anyway, https://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016

Not quite sure of the point of this as I had thought that Article 50 could not in any case be invoked without an Act of Parliament but I suppose that they must know what they're doing - they're lawyers, after all...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Not quite sure of the point of this

I am. It is the rich trying to overturn a decision of the poor and it is disgusting.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am. It is the rich trying to overturn a decision of the poor and it is disgusting.

It would be if it were but it isn't so it's not.

Just as no progress (or regress, depending on the individual point of view) can be made on Brexit until Article 50 is invoked by Parliament, that Article cannot by law be invoked without it first being debated in Parliament. The referendum result is not a "decision"; it cannot be so because
(a) those who voted have no power to "decide" what is or is not to happen following announcement of its result and
(b) it is not in any case legally binding.
The only "decisions" that can therefore be made are in the hands of Parliament alone, namely to elect to have and then hold such a debate and then to invoke or decline to invoke Article 50 at some point of its own choosing thereafter. That's the law.

Your notion of "the rich trying to overturn" an opinion (not a "decision") of "the poor" misses the point of Mishcon de Reya''s proposed action. If you read the text of it carefully you will see quite clearly that its purpose is not actually to "overturn" anything in any case but to ensure that Parliament acts in a legal and constitutionally acceptable manner at all times in its handling of the matter. There is no reference to "rich and "poor", nor should there be given that rich and poor alike voted for each side in the referendum. There is not even an outright declaration of an aim to curb Brexit; if there were, I would expect such attempted action to be thrown out as vexatious.

Whilst you're referring here specifically to the action of that law firm, would you likewise claim that the Grayling letter represents a like example of "the rich trying to overturn a decision of the poor"? If so, what parts of it bring you to that conclusion?

In the meantime, one of the many arguments that will continue to fester and at times rage over the specific terms and conditions of any Brexit concerns the conflict of interest between
(a) UK's need to maintain full advantage as a single European market member and
(b) the widespread call on Brexiteers' part for curbs on free movement of people which is one of the requirements upon all member states that are part of the single market.
How that can be resolved amicably and sustainably between UK and EU looks set to be a major stumbling block in negotiations and is one of the factors that renders impractical, untenable and, frankly, absurd the calls by a handful of Brexiteers for Brexit to be accomplished by last week.

If Brexit proceeds, UK and EU will be in for not only a rough ride but also a very long one that cannot and will not even commence in earnest until Parliament has scheduled and held that Article 50 debate - and not ever if the outcome of that debate is against proceeding.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

https://www.mishcon.com/news/firm_news/article_50_process_on_brexit_faces_legal_challenge_to_ensure_parliamentary_involvement_07_2016

It is the rich trying to overturn a decision of the poor and it is disgusting.

It would be if it were but it isn't so it's not.

Just as no progress (or regress, depending on the individual point of view) can be made on Brexit until Article 50 is invoked by Parliament, that Article cannot by law be invoked without it first being debated in Parliament. The referendum result is not a "decision"; it cannot be so because
(a) those who voted have no power to "decide" what is or is not to happen following announcement of its result and
(b) it is not in any case legally binding.
The only "decisions" that can therefore be made are in the hands of Parliament alone, namely to elect to have and then hold such a debate and then to invoke or decline to invoke Article 50 at some point of its own choosing thereafter. That's the law.

You cannot possibly be so wilfully naive. It's perfectly obvious what it is. It is an attempt to obfuscate and subvert the process by ensuring the situation arises where MPs have to either vote according to their beliefs (which will result in a substantial majority to remain), or fall back on "the majority oif my constituents said x, therefore I will vote accordingly". It is mischief-making.

And this whole argument about referenda being advisory only is such an irrelevance. I can't think of any previous referendum in which the electoral decision (NOT opinion) has been ignored. And if a referendum is ultimately going to be regarded as advisory only, why even bother to hold it?

I still think remain is the better option (and that those who voted to leave are the most likely to be affected deleteriously by their decision), but the nature of this thread is inducing unwelcome sympathy for the leave side.

[ahinton]

You cannot possibly be so wilfully naive.

No, you're right about that, but then I don't have to be!

It's perfectly obvious what it is. It is an attempt to obfuscate and subvert the process by ensuring the situation arises where MPs have to either vote according to their beliefs (which will result in a substantial majority to remain), or fall back on "the majority of my constituents said x, therefore I will vote accordingly". It is mischief-making.

It's nothing of the kind. Parliament has a legal obligation to do this in any case, irrespective of the law firm's reminder (of which I therefore didn't and don't see the point), so there can be no attempt to obfuscate or subvert any process because the situation to which you refer will arise in any case when Parliament debates it (as it has to do by law) and then votes thereon. At that point, it will be up to each MP to decide on which of the two alternatives that you correctly identify when he/she votes on it. That would make quite a decision for my own MP to make, since in his constituency there was a 60% vote favouring Brexit but I believe (although he didn't actually declare his hand) that he supported Remain.

And this whole argument about referenda being advisory only is such an irrelevance. I can't think of any previous referendum in which the electoral decision (NOT opinion) has been ignored. And if a referendum is ultimately going to be regarded as advisory only, why even bother to hold it?

Your question here is very much to the point; there was no reason to hold it. As I've said, there was no obvious public clamouring for it, the Tories were the only party whose manifesto committed itself to holding it (and they might have lost the election, in which case it wouldn't have been held anyway) and they only held it because of their unfounded fears of defections from it to UKIP of which only one occurred - and that was no basis for holding a referendum on another topic altogether.

I still think remain is the better option (and that those who voted to leave are the most likely to be affected deleteriously by their decision), but the nature of this thread is inducing unwelcome sympathy for the leave side.

I concur with you on both points here; however, had the unnecesary referendum been held on a minimum 75% turnout and 60% majority basis and gone the way of Brexit, the only legitimate quibbles thereafter would be about the lies, misleadings and deceptions that might have thrown spanners into the works by cynically manipulating people to vote Leave.

Anyway, one piece of fallout from the raft of confusion and disarray that the whole business has so far caused is a rout of four out of five party leaderships in England, the Tories' and UKIP's having resigned, the Greens considering theirs and the Labour Party - the "official opposition" - in a state of near collapse because so many Labour MPs and past MPs including the last four Labour leaders have told their leader to quite but he won't; another is the possible break-up of UK. What a laughing stock UK must now look from elsewhere in EU!

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Parliament has a legal obligation to do this in any case, irrespective of the law firm's reminder (of which I therefore didn't and don't see the point), so there can be no attempt to obfuscate or subvert any process because the situation to which you refer will arise in any case when Parliament debates it (as it has to do by law) and then votes thereon. At that point, it will be up to each MP to decide on which of the two alternatives that you correctly identify when he/she votes on it. That would make quite a decision for my own MP to make, since in his constituency there was a 60% vote favouring Brexit but I believe (although he didn't actually declare his hand) that he supported Remain.

My comment wasn't sufficiently clear. Yes, I understand the Parliamentary obligation to debate the issue, and thus concur that the legal action taken by Mishcon might reasonably be seen as superfluous. But it's not. The upcoming debate should be a formality - with MPs of all hues taking the line that 'the people have spoken', even if not especially decisively. But I strongly suspect they won't: such legal actions are taken for a reason, and you don't have to look deeply to speculate on the possible motivations.

[ahinton]

My comment wasn't sufficiently clear. Yes, I understand the Parliamentary obligation to debate the issue, and thus concur that the legal action taken by Mishcon might reasonably be seen as superfluous. But it's not. The upcoming debate should be a formality - with MPs of all hues taking the line that 'the people have spoken', even if not especially decisively. But I strongly suspect they won't: such legal actions are taken for a reason, and you don't have to look deeply to speculate on the possible motivations.

But how can the debate be a mere formality and still be a debate? and, more importantly, how can the vote following it be so unless every MP who votes does indeed adopt "the line that (just over 37% of) "the people have spoken", especially for those MPs who support Remain? The former would inevitably be an absurdity and the latter riven with dishonesty!

I don't know Mishcon's reasoning behind what it's so far done on this and might indeed make it my business to try to find out; I will report my findings here, if so. They are lawyers, after all and not in a position to lobby MPs and interfere with due Parliamentary process.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

 They are lawyers, after all and not in a position to lobby MPs and interfere with due Parliamentary process.

That is easily the daftest thing you have ever said. If what you say were true, then influential figures would not be pouring money down their gullet.

Thal

[ahinton]

That is easily the daftest thing you have ever said. If what you say were true, then influential figures would not be pouring money down their gullet.

I don't think that you have understood what I said, or even what I didn't say because I can't say it until I have heard back from Mishcon as to their reason for launching what has been announced on this when Parliament has a legal obligation to debate and have a vote on the invocation of Article 50 regardless of what any law firm says.

No UK law firm, however corrupt, powerful and wealthy, has the power to influence when, whether or why Parliament schedules a debate in HoC or how MPs who attend it vote following it.

Unless by your reference to "influential figures...pouring money down (Mishcon's) gullet" you seek to imply that those who pour it do so with the specific avowed intent to force Parliament to schedule a debate that it has to hold anyway and to nobble or even bribe MPs in advance of it as to how they should vote, all that Mishcon can do is to try to hold Parliament to account in terms of ensuring that it follows all due procedures correctly - but then any individual could do the same without necessarily having to spend a fortune on a Judicial Review of Parliament for failure to do that. Should Parliament fail to follow all due procedures correctly and hope to get away with doing so (whether or not unde the influence of a law firm), all that an individual need do is register a formal written complaint about that to the Parliamentary Ombudsman who would be obliged to investigate it and who has the power to find against Parliament if the complainant's case has merit.

That said, if you genuinely do believe that "influential figures" are "pouring money down" Mishcon's gullet with the sole and specific aim of subverting Parliament by forcing it to bend to their will and ignore its statutory responsibilities and obligations, that would be a very serious accusation indeed, especially given the importance of the subject of the forthcoming (but as yet unscheduled) debate.

Is that what you suspect to be going on? If not, what do you think is going on?

In the meantime, the opening paragraphs of https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/disaster-capitalism-tory-right-brexit-roll-back-state gives pause for thought.

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

I notice that, after luring the British voters into the quagmire that is/will be Brexit (assuming the UK government will not use its brains and not declare the whole shebang void), Mr. Farage, now the question to be answered are 'how?' and 'then what', not forgetting 'how do we ever get out of this again', has declared he wants his life back and slips out of the back door, leaving others to clean the mess. Hmmm. He now desires the captainhood of the Costa Concordia II, perhaps?

Since this is the Piano Forum:

All best,
gep

[ahinton]

I notice that, after luring the British voters into the quagmire that is/will be Brexit (assuming the UK government will not use its brains and not declare the whole shebang void), Mr. Farage, now the question to be answered are 'how?' and 'then what', not forgetting 'how do we ever get out of this again', has declared he wants his life back and slips out of the back door, leaving others to clean the mess.

Well, sadly not quite; his habitual and knee-jerk duplicity goes before him, for having only just sought to persuade anyone prepared to listen to him that he "wants his life back" (and, frankly, he's welcome to it, especially if it gets him out of those of others), he's announced that he intends to continue as an MEP for two years! Whether the European Parliament will allow him to do this might of course be quite another matter. Not for nothing are his initials identical to those of a fortunately now defunct right-wing UK political party...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Predictable lefty attack. Surely it must be time to post another link from the Guardian.

The man deserves a knighthood for his years of service and for helping the people of this Country coming to their senses and voting to seperate ourselves from these clowns.

Hinty, please leave some more bad loser horseshit in the following space...............................................................................

I am off to The Crown at Bedfield for a pint.

Thal.

[mjames]

Wow I must say, listening to a classical concerto after binge-listening to late Scriabin is great and refreshing. It's such a beautiful concerto, I like it very much. Thanks for sharing, Gep!

[ahinton]

Predictable lefty attack. Surely it must be time to post another link from the Guardian.

As it happens, I am in general terms no regular reader or fan of The Guardian and I am certainly not "of the left"; what you appear not to grasp is that those who oppose the entire shebang are not all "lefties" who do so purely becuase they are so.

The man deserves a knighthood for his years of service and for helping the people of this Country coming to their senses and voting to seperate ourselves from these clowns.

Although you are not specific in idenfiing this person, I assume you to be referring to the now self-deposed Mr Farage; my contempt for the entire honours system means that I couldn't care less whether or not he might be so recognised (altough somehow I very much doubt that he will be).

Hinty, please leave some more bad loser horseshit in the following space

There can be no good or bad losers here right now because Article 50 has yet to be debated on and then invoked (or otherwise) in Parliament; please do yourself and the rest of us the favour of recognising that, whichever way it might go once it has been, we're all still waiting and nothing can happen about Brexit until and unless it has. Thank you.

I am off to The Crown at Bedfield for a pint.

Then please do enjoy your 0.568261l of the unspecificed liquid that you propose to consume there

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There can be no good or bad losers here right now because Article 50 has yet to be debated on and then invoked (or otherwise)

It has to be invoked, that was the will of the people. The Brexiteers had a 1,250,000 majority in the referendum.

Parliament can debate it if they must, but if they try to wriggle out of it, we will have anarchy and democracy in this Country will be dead.

Thal

[ahinton]

It has to be invoked, that was the will of the people. The Brexiteers had a 1,250,000 majority in the referendum.

No - it has to be debated and voted upon; the will of 37% of the people counts for just that - the will of 37% of the people (and not including the 16 and 17 year old people at that).

Parliament can debate it if they must, but if they try to wriggle out of it, we will have anarchy and democracy in this Country will be dead.

Parliament has no choice and cannot influence who votes how. Each MP who votes will do so as a member of the electorate, not as an MP; anything else would be dishonest. As there are and were considerably more MPs in favour of Remain than Leave, if sufficient of them suddenly turned tail and voted the other way in such a situation, how dishonest would be and rightly be perceived to be?

What makes you think that democracy is still alive in the country in any case? I see precious little evidence of it. Speaking of that, though, even if for whatever reason Bexit pertains, who's to say that individuals, SMEs and corporations active in UK might not simply break the law and act as though Brexit had never occurred? If sufficient of them do so in such ciurcumstances, who'd be able to bang them up? I would not of course advocate breach of the law, but I would not be surprised were this to happen under such strained circumstances - and yes, it would indeed be a kind of anarchy but one that resulted not from a vote but despite one.

Where you and I do agree is that we neither of us want to se this country break up and/or go down; let's each hope against hope that it does neither.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Alternatively, only 34.75% of the electorate want to remain. 28% it seems aren't too fussed either way. If you want to deal with this, make voting mandatory.

MPs are supposed to represent the will of their constituents and be their servant. Any MP who decides that in a matter of this importance they will indulge their own personal feelings should be ejected at the soonest opportunity for abusing their position. Incidentally my view regarding this applies irrespective of whether they vote against a constituency leave vote or against a constituency remain vote.

[thalbergmad]

What makes you think that democracy is still alive in the country in any case?

If our pathetic leaders manage to wriggle out of a Brexit it will no longer exist.

Thal

[ahinton]

Alternatively, only 34.75% of the electorate want to remain. 28% it seems aren't too fussed either way. If you want to deal with this, make voting mandatory.

Fair point, but I don't think that this would work well. Setting the bar at a reasonable height (75+% has been suggested in the petition and 4,114,118 have so far ignored their endorsement of this) would, however, do the trick and a 60+% majority for the "winning" side would seal it beyond all reasonable argument.

MPs are supposed to represent the will of their constituents and be their servant.

That's not entiurely true. In addition to representing their contituents, they have a national responsibility in Westminster (Holyrood et al - except that they're MSPs in Holyrood) and this is a matter of national and international importance.

No MP can vote on the Article 50 debate (once it's taken place) in support of all of his/her constituents in any case - only for a majority of them.

Any MP who decides that in a matter of this importance they will indulge their own personal feelings should be ejected at the soonest opportunity for abusing their position. Incidentally my view regarding this applies irrespective of whether they vote against a constituency leave vote or against a constituency remain vote.

Liam Fox (one of the Tory runners in the leadership / Prime Ministership race) has said pretty much the same; however, each MP has a right and duty to vote in accordance with his beliefs just as each of his/her constituents do because, ultiamely, he/she is not just an MP but a UK citizen. Voting one way when the majority of the constituents have voted the other way is perfectly reasonable; merely to side with the majority would be dishonest.

In my constituency there was a turnout of almost 80% and a majority of almost 60% for Brexit; this would very nearly satisfy the wishes of the petitioner and those who've signed the petition. I believe (although he's not shown his hand on which way he voted) that my MP supports Remain. His dishonesty in voting against his belief would be among the worst in the country should he do that. At least in my constituency there was a high turnout and a clear majority; had that been the case everywhere in UK and had it been reflected across the country, I would have accepted that "the nation has spoken" and, whilst I would still disagree with what it had said, I would agree that Brexit should now proceed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The rules were clear. 60% was not required and we could do referendums for the rest of time on this subject and not get 60%.

Only a majority was required and that is what we got. I still fail to see what there is not to accept.

Please keep any response to less than 10,000 words.

Thal

[ahinton]

If our pathetic leaders manage to wriggle out of a Brexit it will no longer exist.

But, as I implied, it barely exists now, so if it gets just that bit worse under that or inded any other circumstance, not much change wilil have occurred.

Which in any case are "our pathetic leaders"?

The Tories - the party of government - have lost theirs due to his indiscretion and folly in gambling and losing and given rise to a most unpleasant squabble between five candidates seeking to seize his tarnished crown (and only three of them voted Remain in any case.

The Labour Party is in utter disarray, not least over its leadership; Cameron did the honourable thing and quit (as I believe you agreed earlier), whereas Corbyn's hanging on by whaever bit or frayed string he can find, in the face of calls from most of his fellow Labour MPs and ex-MPs - including his four predecessors as party leader, for heaven's sake!

The leader of UKIP has followed Cameron's example (for once!) and resigned.

The Greens' leader is considering her position.

So the only party leader still in place (at least for the time being) is Tim Farron, whose LibDem party has only 8 seats in Parliament in any case!

As to party leaders "wriggling out of Brexit", that will not be possible; when the Article 50 debate has taken place and put to a vote, that vote will be open to all MPs who attend, not just party leaders and, as we know, there are those on both sides in all parties except UKIP and the Greens who have only one MP each in any case.

There will in any event be no "wriggling" to be done - only voting. How each MP will vote is up to them and I would not predict the outcome of that vote; all that I would say at this point is that, at the time of the referendum, a noticeably larger proportion of MPs favoured Remain than favoured Leave, so only if enough of them change their position when voiting on the Article 50 debate will Brexit be able legally to proceed.

The only other means for Parliament to get away with proceeding with Brexit without a debate and a vote would be to hold neither and, as far as I am aware, it would have acted illegally and unconstitutionally had it done that.

I will therefore rephrase your sentence above to

"If Parliament (in the shape of its MPs) manages to overturn the message sent in an advisory and therefore non-mandatory referendum in which the "winning" side couldn't even scrape 37% of the nation's votes and thereby undo Brexit, it will no longer exist"; the people's Parliamentary representatives - and therefore Parliament - will have spoken. If the vote goes the other way, the same will apply.

God save our gracious Queen (who must now be feeling very sick and worried indeed as she nears the 66th year of her reign and enters her tenth decade); from her state opening of Parliament speeches, the phrase "my government" is never absent - right now, she's probably thinking "my God!"...

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

The rules were clear. 60% was not required and we could do referendums for the rest of time on this subject and not get 60%.

Yes, the rules were indeed clear; 50/50 and no minimum turnout. The rules were also wrong and gravely ill-considered; they were quite simply not acceptable for something that will turn upside down the lives of all UK and EU citizens (including UK citizens living elsewhere in EU and citizens of other EU nations living in UK - that's well over 4m in total, I believe) for generations to come. Add to that simple truth the facts that
(a) no referendum was called for or necessary and that only one UK political party included the promise to call one in its General Election Manifesto (so, should it have lost, there'd have been none anyway)
(b) the referendum was called because of Tory fears of defections to UKIP rather than because it sought to consult the nation on its continued EU membership, yet only one such occurred in any case
(c) most of the conduct of the campaign wouldn't have been tolerated in a deprived inner city area school playground and
(d) few expected any majority in favour of Brexit so laid no advance plans for it, leaving us all up a creek without a canoe, let alone a paddle
and it becomes abundantly clear that not only the woefully lax rules but also pretty much everything else about the referendum was unacceptable; for that, the nation should hold its head in shame (as indeed some of it is doing just that, watched over by an increasingly irascible EU).

Only a majority was required and that is what we got.

Whilst less than 37.5% is not a majority, yes, "what we we got" was just what we deserved for having set this thing up and conducted it as we did.

I still fail to see what there is not to accept.

The above. Moreover, had the referendum result been mandatory on Parliament, there'd be no requirement for a debate and vote on it there and Brexit could proceed as soon as those "in charge" (who might they be?) set its wheels in motion; however, as you know, that's not the case (for this, too, was how the referendum was set up) so, like it or not, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings By-bye Bruxelles by Art Tickle, Op. 50.

Please keep any response to less than 10,000 words

"As many words as I need!", as Mozart once said on his notes; far less than 10,000, though.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Now here's one that our Thal will surely appreciate!...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-36570120

11:55

Shadow Lords leader Baroness Smith of Basildon opens by saying: "In the past few weeks we have seen how strong leadership, good team work, thoughtful strategy and real skill can be effective and successful.

"Unfortunately, it has come not from government but from the Welsh football team, who have brought some much needed cheer to us all."

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Whilst less than 37.5% is not a majority, yes, "what we we got" was just what we deserved for having set this thing up and conducted it as we did

It was a majority of 1,250,000 people. A sizeable sum indeed.

If the MP's vote against the will of the people and override a democratic majority, then there will be no point in ever consulting the electorate again.

End of as far as i am concerned. I am off to Earl Soham for a beer.

Thal.