[SystemSafety] Off Topic

[Andreoli, Kevin (UK)]

Peter,

The UK Government has not lost a referendum.  The Conservative Party members campaigned on both sides as it was not a referendum on government policy, it was the PM keeping an election manifesto promise.

If a motion of no-confidence was to be raised, the government would win as every single Conservative MP would vote for the government in order to stay in power.

It is expected that Boris will call a snap election to take advantage of the disarray of the opposition and hence gain a bigger majority.

Kevin
--
Usual  disclaimers


-----Original Message-----
From: systemsafety [mailto:systemsafety-bounces at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de] On Behalf Of Peter Bernard Ladkin
Sent: 25 June 2016 18:05
To: systemsafety at lists.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de
Subject: Re: [SystemSafety] Off Topic



On 2016-06-25 17:42 , Michael J. Pont wrote:
> Bernd Sieker wrote:
>> But really, being bound by the rules of the EU single market (EU + 
>> EFTA)
> and EASA
>> without having a say in those rules: who would ever see that as a victory?
> 
> Victory?  I think it's now a question of damage limitation.

EASA is writing rules and guidance on safety and reliability for ground-based systems for ANSPs.
Colleagues, and maybe I, think they recognise the style. Can anyone really conceive of a world in which the CAA SRG becomes the passive receptor of diktats from Cologne? If you can, then I'd like some of what you're smoking, too.

What's with the following? Is (some of) this right? This was prompted by Robert Schaefer's question.

In years gone by (up to 2011), if the government proposed a referendum and lost, then the government would resign, (or, if not, a motion of no confidence would be tabled, and likely won, in the Commons), a general election would be held, and the new government would move on its manifesto, which would undoubtedly include initiating the action on the referendum that was included in its manifesto. But now we're in the era of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.

Laurie Penny is repeating Camryn James's explanation yesterday morning of what his Welsh voters were voting against, and it wasn't the EU http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/i-want-my-country-back (BTW, I want my country back too. This is a powerful and vitriolic essay which contains some penetrating analysis). There is a serious argument, then, that the highly unusual advisory did not result in a legitimate expression of the will of the people on the question put to them (which was not the case with, say, the Scottish-independence referendum, and, besides, a referendum was the only instrument available which could have determined the will of Scotland without involving the rest of the UK). This on a matter which will likely substantially affect the political and economic well-being of the UK for decades and longer. What should a responsible government and Parliament do in such circumstances? Recall that Parliament is sovereign.

They could try to ascertain the will of the people, in the more traditional and usual manner.

There's a petition. With 100,000 signatures, it must be debated by Parliament. Since Parliament is largely of the Bremain persuasion, a debate on the referendum and its import could result in a motion of no confidence in the government (who has any confidence in them, at this point?), which would stop everything and result in a general election within 14 days, at which immigration, lack of jobs, zero-time contracts, welfare provisions, austerity, the NHS, Southern Rail, the steel industry, Hinckley Point, the EU, Scotland's secession (maybe in union with NI) and the collapse of the union, as well as senior politicians lying to the public in referendum campaigns, could all be debated.

Anthony Hilton is saying that PM + Cabinet couldn't just invoke Article 50 without an Act of Parliament http://www.standard.co.uk/business/anthony-hilton-why-we-may-remain-even-if-we-vote-leave-a3272621.html

The Speaker schedules debates, as far as I know. He is understood to be sympathetic to remaining in the EU. If the petition debate were scheduled before a motion of no confidence, and that before the Brexit bill, and the no-confidence motion passed, then the Brexit bill would not be debated or voted and a new Parliament with maybe a different mandate would be convened after the election.

I think whichever way you look at it that this represents a constitutional crisis. A split of the Union, and the legitimacy of a government whose PM has resigned acting without the full backing of Parliament on a matter of grave import to the economic and political future of the country (and splitting the Union in the process) on the basis of an unusual advisory instrument. It just seems insane that something like this could happen. Constitutional crisis.

Maybe the Queen will request an audience with Mr. Cameron to remind him that his government has lost a referendum, that that is by any account the popular expression of no confidence in his government, and that the way British governments respond to a legitimate expression of no confidence is for the PM to resign and a general election to be called?

PBL

Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Bielefeld, Germany MoreInCommon Je suis Charlie
Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319  www.rvs-bi.de





********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************