It was a requirement of the Lib Dems for joining the coalition we have managed to bumble along for hundreds of years without it. I suspect that most MPs now think that in hindsight it was a bad idea.

As long as Johnson calls for a cross party review of the parliamentary issues of the last 3 years I am fine with that. I said at the time the Supreme Court should not be interfering where there is no law and that law is what Parliament decides.

Now that the dust has settled it is right and proper that Parliament should look at a whole list of issues including defining and limiting the powers of the PM in statute.

Until that is understood and accepted the arguments won't just be about rejoining. They will also be about the illegitimacy of the whole process.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (14 Jan 2020 1.56pm)

I'm shocked...cough...truly shocked.

[Link]

Remainer elites and gravy trains come to mind.

Nice cushy EU job no doubt down the pipe.

Nauseating.

It was a requirement of the Lib Dems for joining the coalition we have managed to bumble along for hundreds of years without it. I suspect that most MPs now think that in hindsight it was a bad idea.

I doubt whether individual MPs think it is a bad idea but both major parties have resisted it because it threatened their traditional dominance. I do though anticipate a change of attitude from whatever type of Labour party emerges from the ashes and certainly from any Phoenix of a new party. The Tories though will put every obstacle in it's way. Farage won't when he gets his next party on the road.

As long as Johnson calls for a cross party review of the parliamentary issues of the last 3 years I am fine with that. I said at the time the Supreme Court should not be interfering where there is no law and that law is what Parliament decides.

They didn't though interfere. They were requested to conduct an appeal of two judicial reviews. One appeal was at the Government's own request. They made their determination as was their duty.

Now that the dust has settled it is right and proper that Parliament should look at a whole list of issues including defining and limiting the powers of the PM in statute.

Parliament can look at whatever it wants and enact whatever laws it thinks are needed. That's not the issue. It is whether what is proposed is either wise or necessary.

How do you marry up that statement with the fact that the 2016 referendum only came about because Parliament voted in huge numbers? By the very same MP's you have constantly eulogized about? How in any way, shape or form does that make the process illegitimate?

I recognise there is truth in that statement. Nevertheless the MPs from the major parties were whipped and most campaigned against it. They believed the vote would confirm our membership. Only the SNP got it right, opposed it, and saw the realities that lay behind it. Former SNP leader Alex Salmond said "no-one believed" David Cameron wanted to take the UK out of the EU and suggested the bill was primarily designed to appease Tory backbenchers. He said:-

So illegitimate is probably not legally accurate but in my opinion it was certainly morally illegitimate.

I buy into why you might argue that the referendum was not binding. And how MP's had the right to reject the result. All part of how the system works.

They did but the party leaders lacked the bottle to do it. Only some of the truly heroic stood firm and did what they regarded as in the national interest. Most lost their job as a result.

But it was all conducted in accordance with not only the law but new interpretations of ages-old conventions. You might not like the outcome but it was not only legal but sanctioned by every concerned party in the country.

It was because it was all validated in Parliament. That though isn't really the point. The question I am asking is if this series of events shows us that our politics is not now working as it should or as is intended? If we end up with something not wanted by our elected representatives then my answer is that it is not.