Crosswords1 min ago
Question Time Yesterday
10 Answers
I watched a bit of QT yesterday and the SNP bloke waved the A50 bill around incredulous that it was so short accusing TM of trying to hoodwink the idiot people with flimflam and no substance. Look at our white paper of (whatever craperlisious thing it was) he said. This is what she should have done. Why is she being allowed to get away with. Sort of thing.
I had to go and make a cup of tea then so don't know what the reply was but either the man is stupid because he doesn't know the difference between a bill to trigger A50 and the white paper that looks at the detail or he is in fact the one who is trying to hoodwink the idiot people by his deliberate ploy?
I had to go and make a cup of tea then so don't know what the reply was but either the man is stupid because he doesn't know the difference between a bill to trigger A50 and the white paper that looks at the detail or he is in fact the one who is trying to hoodwink the idiot people by his deliberate ploy?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by cassa333. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Why do they keep saying stupid things? “
Because polticians are renowned for it. They do it to support whatever cause it is they are currently campaigning about. After the folly of their ways has been exposed they usually bluster on about “taken out of context” and sometimes insolently suggest that ordinary people don’t know what the “complex issues involved” are all about.
With this particular matter, as I have been banging on about for what seems like a decade, there are no complex issues involved. The complexity has been introduced by Remoaners who seek to delay, frustrate or even completely thwart the UK’s departure from the EU. They seek to impose conditions on the government triggering A50, saying that Parliamentary support should not be given unless guarantees about the outcome of the leaving negotiations are provided. Their argument is hogwash. The UK is leaving the EU. To do this A50 needs to be triggered. The Supreme Court determined that Parliament’s agreement must be given before this can be done. But that’s all it said. The rest, including when and how withdrawal is achieved, is a matter for Parliament.
So, the UK is leaving the EU and that is not conditional on any “negotiations” or “deals” that may or may not be struck. If no agreement is reached we simply walk away and become like any other normal country outside the EU. To start that process off Parliament’s permission to trigger A50 is required and the Bill published yesterday contained all that is necessary to secure that. After A50 is triggered the debate can begin about the terms of our withdrawal. Those seeking to “amend” the Bill are simply seeking to frustrate the process because no negotiations can begin (and hence no pledges on their outcome made) before we formally hand in our notice. They must understand that leaving is unconditional.
Because polticians are renowned for it. They do it to support whatever cause it is they are currently campaigning about. After the folly of their ways has been exposed they usually bluster on about “taken out of context” and sometimes insolently suggest that ordinary people don’t know what the “complex issues involved” are all about.
With this particular matter, as I have been banging on about for what seems like a decade, there are no complex issues involved. The complexity has been introduced by Remoaners who seek to delay, frustrate or even completely thwart the UK’s departure from the EU. They seek to impose conditions on the government triggering A50, saying that Parliamentary support should not be given unless guarantees about the outcome of the leaving negotiations are provided. Their argument is hogwash. The UK is leaving the EU. To do this A50 needs to be triggered. The Supreme Court determined that Parliament’s agreement must be given before this can be done. But that’s all it said. The rest, including when and how withdrawal is achieved, is a matter for Parliament.
So, the UK is leaving the EU and that is not conditional on any “negotiations” or “deals” that may or may not be struck. If no agreement is reached we simply walk away and become like any other normal country outside the EU. To start that process off Parliament’s permission to trigger A50 is required and the Bill published yesterday contained all that is necessary to secure that. After A50 is triggered the debate can begin about the terms of our withdrawal. Those seeking to “amend” the Bill are simply seeking to frustrate the process because no negotiations can begin (and hence no pledges on their outcome made) before we formally hand in our notice. They must understand that leaving is unconditional.
If it's a matter for Parliament as you concede then it also sort of follows that Parliament is free to insist on any preconditions it likes for the triggering of Article 50.
In theory, at least. In practice, it is far more in keeping with the spirit of the referendum to pass this bill without amendments, and leave any further "conditions", or constraints on the direction HM Government may take in negotiations, for separate legislation. That way, the outcome of the referendum can be respected while retaining open the question of what leaving the EU means.
In theory, at least. In practice, it is far more in keeping with the spirit of the referendum to pass this bill without amendments, and leave any further "conditions", or constraints on the direction HM Government may take in negotiations, for separate legislation. That way, the outcome of the referendum can be respected while retaining open the question of what leaving the EU means.
"...it also sort of follows that Parliament is free to insist on any preconditions it likes for the triggering of Article 50. "
Then it also follows, jim, that Parliament is free to halt the process of leaving altogether. Because the alternative to no satisfactory leaving deal being agreed is not to leave. Whilst I agree that, following the SC ruling, that is perfectly possible, is that really what MPs are seeking to do? I wish those that are seeking such an outcome would come out and say so. All we get is "We don't want to overturn the result of the referendum but...." These are meaningless platitudes. If MPs feeling this way told the truth (which would be, for some of them anyway, quite a novelty) the electorate would know where it stood. As I keep on saying, the electorate wasn't asked "Do you want to leave the EU provided we get a good deal/provided we stay in the Single Market/provided it doesn't cost too much". They were also not asked if they wanted to half leave/leave the bits they don't like/retain the bits they do. They were asked whether they wanted to leave. They were told in a pamphlet issued by the government that their decision would be enacted. They should not have to concern themselves with the niceties of constitutional law when asked such a simple question and been given such a straightforward assurance.
Then it also follows, jim, that Parliament is free to halt the process of leaving altogether. Because the alternative to no satisfactory leaving deal being agreed is not to leave. Whilst I agree that, following the SC ruling, that is perfectly possible, is that really what MPs are seeking to do? I wish those that are seeking such an outcome would come out and say so. All we get is "We don't want to overturn the result of the referendum but...." These are meaningless platitudes. If MPs feeling this way told the truth (which would be, for some of them anyway, quite a novelty) the electorate would know where it stood. As I keep on saying, the electorate wasn't asked "Do you want to leave the EU provided we get a good deal/provided we stay in the Single Market/provided it doesn't cost too much". They were also not asked if they wanted to half leave/leave the bits they don't like/retain the bits they do. They were asked whether they wanted to leave. They were told in a pamphlet issued by the government that their decision would be enacted. They should not have to concern themselves with the niceties of constitutional law when asked such a simple question and been given such a straightforward assurance.
It's probably a while since I have said this but I agree fully with New Judge. Rightly or wrongly, the public vote was a binary choice- stay or leave; there was no option of "leave if...". That choice should be honoured. Parliament should now endorse that and then we can focus on sorting out the best possible future arrangements.
1 to 10 of 10
