Rewrite history...

7

798686

Guest
If you could rewrite political history from 2010 onwards, in fairly plausible fashion, how would it go?

Just curious...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 185248 and Perados

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I would go for some changes in the small-print of the 2015 EU Referendum Act, that set up the Brexit Referendum and Brexit. These changes would:
a) set out in black and white that the decision is taken by the whole UK and that regional counting of votes is purely a matter of convenience. (Indeed central counting might be better.)
b) set out in black and white that Brexit is withdrawal from single market and customs union.
c) set out the mechanism, that article 50 is to be submitted by the PM within one week of the referendum result, and that Brexit is a Treaty matter which is the responsibility of government.
d) set out the withdrawal date as two years from the date of the referendum.
e) set out that the UK will meet legitimate financial liabilities to the EU, but will not pay a bribe to the EU.

Curiously none of these changes would have been controversial in 2015 as people thought this was what the legislation meant. However these are the details over which the UK has subsequently argued, and it is the argument that has been so negative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I would go for some changes in the small-print of the 2015 EU Referendum Act, that set up the Brexit Referendum and Brexit. These changes would:
a) set out in black and white that the decision is taken by the whole UK and that regional counting of votes is purely a matter of convenience. (Indeed central counting might be better.)
b) set out in black and white that Brexit is withdrawal from single market and customs union.
c) set out the mechanism, that article 50 is to be submitted by the PM within one week of the referendum result, and that Brexit is a Treaty matter which is the responsibility of government.
d) set out the withdrawal date as two years from the date of the referendum.
e) set out that the UK will meet legitimate financial liabilities to the EU, but will not pay a bribe to the EU.

Curiously none of these changes would have been controversial in 2015 as people thought this was what the legislation meant. However these are the details over which the UK has subsequently argued, and it is the argument that has been so negative.
Maybe you should have thought about it before you do a referendum...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wushi

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Maybe you should have thought about it before you do a referendum...

I really do think the legislation should have been better drafted. However a team of Civil Servants, 650 MPs (and their advisors) over a thousand Lords and the UK media all missed the problems. We are looking at thousands of people, not one of whom spotted the problems that have subsequently been so difficult. It might just be that the problems are invented ones.

The moral of course is that the legislative process takes time. There is a view that the Brexit referendum legislation was hurried.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I would go for some changes in the small-print of the 2015 EU Referendum Act, that set up the Brexit Referendum and Brexit. These changes would:...
ah. So you are agreeing then that the referendum did NOT
a) set out in black and white that the decision is taken by the whole UK and that regional counting of votes is purely a matter of convenience. (Indeed central counting might be better.)
b) set out in black and white that Brexit is withdrawal from single market and customs union.
c) set out the mechanism, that article 50 is to be submitted by the PM within one week of the referendum result, and that Brexit is a Treaty matter which is the responsibility of government.
d) set out the withdrawal date as two years from the date of the referendum.
e) set out that the UK will meet legitimate financial liabilities to the EU, but will not pay a bribe to the EU.
So all this has been made up the conservatives, who have made a terrible job of implementing any sort of Brexit. (presumably because thy dont believe in it)

Curiously none of these changes would have been controversial in 2015
pariament debated whethr the refrendum should be binding, and clearly chose to reject this. It was not a binding referendum, only advisory and parliament made this quite clear in the legislation.


Since it has proved impossible to implement, Brexit should now be scrapped.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
In a civil law jurisdiction a referendum can be binding. In a common law jurisdiction this is nuanced. The straightforward position is that any referendum in the UK is advisory, and this is how they have all been conducted. It would be possible for parliament to frame legislation in terms of a binding result, but parliament is sovereign. Between receiving a binding result and implementing it, our common law system makes it possible for parliament to repeal the binding aspect. There would have been time to do this. Arguably parliament didn't know this at the time, as the EC and everyone else said that A50 could not be revoked (and that's a civil law matter).

I think it was logical for parliament to reject a binding concept as it really doesn't fit. However we're left with a potential crisis in democracy were a referendum result ever to be over-turned. I think it is hard to over-state the seriousness of this. I think there would be cross-party consensus to stop this.

There is no difficulty in implementing Brexit. The UK leaves 29th March. At 11pm.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
The straightforward position is that any referendum in the UK is advisory, and this is how they have all been conducted.
Glad we are clear on that.

Between receiving a binding result and implementing it, our common law system makes it possible for parliament to repeal the binding aspect.
And glad we can also now agree on that too. Brexit can be cancelled all the wayup to the last second.

I'd also go further. Parliament is also capable of retrospectively changing the law. So if we decided to remain, all we need do is give notice at the last possible moment, and then spend the next month clearing up the mess because our home legislations doesnt conform to the requirements of membership

we're left with a potential crisis in democracy were a referendum result ever to be over-turned.
Then we must be in one now, because the EU referendum result with a strong majority to remain seems to have been overturned.

Really the crisis is because only 30% of the nation voted to leave this time. Pretty obvious there was no way for the government to satisfy voters after that.

I noticed that in her new year message, Theresa May acknowledged that nation is well up shit creek, and she is powerless to sort the mess her party has caused.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Perados
1

185248

Guest
If you could rewrite political history from 2010 onwards, in fairly plausible fashion, how would it go?

Just curious...
Well, for a start the Queen could have given the reigns over to Charles, but she didn't. Being a Monarch though....I suppose at some point, God can't save the Queen.

I'm curious too...more of a curiosity :) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Glad we are clear on that.

A referendum is advisory. However that is now irrelevant. Brexit has been enshrined in UK legislation. It is no longer possible for the government to stop it. It could only be stopped by an Act of Parliament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,023
Media
0
Likes
3,957
Points
333
Location
United States
You mean like change reality so that whatever we wanted to happen just happened?

Within reason of course...

I think I would have Trump lose the election in 2016. That seems reasonable to me.

In terms of pre-2016 events, I am not sure. What is a reasonable thing that could have happened then?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
True, but legislation takes 6 months if there is agreement
Only because normally it is complicated and people take their time. The technical procedures are quite simple and can be done in a day. A simple repeal of the acts to leave could be done in one day.
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,945
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Only because normally it is complicated and people take their time. The technical procedures are quite simple and can be done in a day. A simple repeal of the acts to leave could be done in one day.

Could be, should be, would be - all sound so similar, all have vastly different meanings and likelihood.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

Jason

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 26, 2004
Posts
15,616
Media
50
Likes
4,782
Points
433
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Only because normally it is complicated and people take their time. The technical procedures are quite simple and can be done in a day. A simple repeal of the acts to leave could be done in one day.

This is not correct.

The key is that it is not a technical issue. It is legislation which meshes with tens of thousands of other bits of legislation. It has taken the full-blown parliamentary process plus the Henry VIII powers to make it happen, along with court involvement. It would take something equally huge to stop it.

I heard on the radio yesterday a backbench Labour MP saying she wants to "delay" Brexit. Maybe she wants twelve months of Spring and a free unicorn. It simply isn't possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joll

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
This is not correct.

The key is that it is not a technical issue. It is legislation which meshes with tens of thousands of other bits of legislation.
Absolutely not. All the intricate legislations necessary for EU membership are already written and currently in place. All that is needed is to reinstate them. The obvious way to do so is to simply cancel every act which would now cancel our membership. Simple repeals, done in a day.

I expect such an act has already been prepared and is in Mrs May's in tray in case its needed.

What must be made absolutely clear to every voter, is that if parliament decides to stay in the EU but the government refuses to do so, it is their fault. They have the power to do this, there are no technical difficulties which would stop them.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I just looked at the EU withdrawal act. It appears to say that the exit date can be changd by a minister if the actual day of leaving under article 50 of the eU treaty changes. So the process would be, Mrs May withdraws notice to leave. The date of leaving under that section becomes never. A minister then amends the withdrawal act date to conform.

The withdrawal act could in principle be looked upon as just a bit of the EU treaty which should have been there from the start but no one bothered with. If an actual date to leave arrives, then it is ready to be invoked. Otherwise it does nothing.

Mrs May has already been authorised by act of parliament to give notice under article 50, which presumably includes authorisation to withdraw notice.

Brexit has a comprehensive 'emergency stop' button, which could be implemented purely by the PM as late as one hour before the deadline.
 
Last edited: