I’m not sure why that is a headline in the Scottish Daily Express (15p less than the Record and Mail).

Your referendum vote, Scots?

As far as I’m aware, in this country we voted to stay in the EU by a margin of more than 62%. (Although, I suppose the average reader of the Daily Diana, which is morphing into the Daily Kate, may have voted for Brexit.)

Now, I think that a referendum result should stand and that MPs shouldn’t be able to overturn it, which in any case, is exactly what Mrs May has said will happen. The argument that MPs are the representatives of the people and that they must have a say on all things seems to be to be not unreasonable in general terms. However, in the case of a referendum, the government has gone over the heads of the MPs to their bosses, the people themselves.

The result may not suit me, but fair’s fair. The people have spoken.  In any case, can you imagine the unrest, particularly in England, if parliament overturned the referendum result?

What I think might be reasonable is that MPs be given the opportunity to vote on how the likes of May,  Johnson, Fox and Davies are progressing to get the UK the best possible Brexit deal.

I mean it seems to me that under the current situation we are leaving these monumentally important decisions to some pretty phenomenally inexperienced and inexpert people. And they have vowed to keep all progress from parliament. Heaven help us!

Clearly, of course, I hope that before March 2019, the date at which (if Mrs May is to be believed) the UK will leave the EU, Scotland will have left the British Empire behind it and be independent.




  1. “I mean it seems to me that under the current situation we are leaving these monumentally important decisions to some pretty phenomenally inexperienced and inexpert people. And they have vowed to keep all progress from parliament. Heaven help us!”

    You mean the HoC could stand in their way? Checkout Tony Blair and London calling down nuclear armaments from Saddam Hussein. It was an excuse to go to war then, and, sadly, it will always be. Because the is what Westminster does.

    You rarely, if ever, see a defence of the Johns Hopkins death toll.

    It is just buried in statistics, but it suggested the Iraqi death toll was utterly horrendous.

    They are dead and buried. So, apparently is the extent of the crime. The winners write the history books?


    Anyay we Brits just lurve the American war machine.

    “We don’t want Polaris, we shall not be moved”

    Find me that on the internet, I can’t

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s dubious whether the Commons could as far as I can make out. It would be a constitutional argument that would be challenged in the courts.

      But yeah, the British government is very secretive. And no one will ever know how many people died in Iraq, or Libya, or Syria, or Afghanistan or now in Yemen where UK bombs are killing thousands.


  2. Hmm.

    So a member of a foreign family who will no doubt be getting put on a secret government list any day now is the U.K.’s Duchess of diplomacy is she?

    Well as far as I’m concerned she is not a Duchess just another unnecessary hanger on.

    She can be as diplomatic as she likes but she will still end up on the “list.”

    Come the revolution neither her or her husband’s family will be permitted to carry on behaving like they own Scotland … they’ll all be turfed oot on their ear!

    In so far as the headline is concerned well what can I say?

    Being someone always on the lookout for a bit of exercise I think we could be in for some *ahem* exciting times if the Hous of Commons successfully overturns the E.U. referendum result. As most folks will recall there were quite a few *cough* mini riots in England, mostly London, a few years ago. Well in my view I believe any attempt to overturn the referendum result will result in full blown riots up and down England. If they thought the riots from before were bad then they are well and truly in for one hell of a shock this time. My advice to M.P.’s is let sleeping dogs lie. The public have spoken now you deal with the consequences!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I agree. The newspapers such as the Daily Kate, have definitely stirred up real hatred against EU nationals, and all other foreigners (including, I wouldn’t wonder, Scots).

      I think there will be trouble anyway, particularly in England, when the thickeratti discover that foreigners are here to stay, that in fact we can;t do without them, and like you I wouldn’t be overly surprised if it were worse than before.

      The whole place seems to me to be going to hell in a hand cart. I see that before rallying, there was a point at which the Euro and the pound reached parity. Ho hum…


    2. I see what you did there…

      “As most folks will recall there were quite a few *cough* mini riots in England, mostly London, a few years ago. Well in my view I believe any attempt to overturn the referendum result will result in full blown riots up and down England. If they thought the riots from before were bad then they are well and truly in for one hell of a shock this time.”

      Frankly, London had a case to argue, last time around. 2011, if memory serves me right:

      “Between 6 and 11 August 2011, thousands of people rioted in several London boroughs and in cities and towns across England. The resulting chaos generated looting, arson, and mass deployment of police and resulted in the death of five people. Disturbances began on 6 August after a protest in Tottenham, London, following the death of Mark Duggan, a local man who was shot dead by police on 4 August.[12] Several violent clashes with police ensued, along with the destruction of police vehicles, a double-decker bus, and many homes and businesses, thus rapidly gaining attention from the media. Overnight, looting took place in Tottenham Hale retail park and nearby Wood Green. The following days saw similar scenes in other parts of London, with the most rioting taking place in Hackney, Brixton, Walthamstow, Peckham, Enfield, Battersea, Croydon, Ealing, Barking, Woolwich, Lewisham and East Ham. ”

      Bankers taking to the streets? Not terribly likely.

      It is not just the police in the USA that use forearms indiscriminately.

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Here’s the weird thing:

      The referendum on Brexit was only advisatory. (ALL referendum in the UK are only advisatory)

      Cameron would have been perfectly within his rights to simply say “thanks for your views, we’re now going to ignore them” the day after the referendum.

      The Commons have every right to simply tell the public “no” on Brexit by the law of the land.


      1. It seems that the courts may have to decide whether the people or the parliament is supreme, Illy. Have a read of Les Cunningham’s article. It’s interesting.


  3. This is a very tricky area. In my view, it doesn’t make sense for the government to reveal their plans before negotiations begin. By necessity, they need to keep quite a lot secret so as not to weaken their negotiating position, which, anyway, will need to be fluid to some degree as negotiations proceed. As a consequence, it will be hard for a meaningful vote to take place in advance of A50. Ratifying the negotiated settlement is fraught with difficulty, too. What happens if Parliament decides to reject the settlement? Perhaps Leavers think it is too soft, while Remainers feel that rejecting it will be a blow to the whole process. The UK will still be on the fast track to leaving the EU but without any agreement at all. That would be the hardest Brexit possible. I can’t see Parliament rejecting the settlement because they have no option but to accept it. That turns any Parliamentary vote into an administrative nicety. They should have a vote at that point, I agree, but it might be no more effective than a rubber stamp.

    I’ve been trying to think how a pre-A50 vote in Parliament could work. Could there be a vote on single issues like full membership of the EEA? On capping migration? On access to fishing grounds? Given their proven level of ignorance, Parliament would just vote for full EEA membership *and* migration caps *and* limiting EU access to fishing grounds. The trouble is that these issues are so inter-linked that I can’t see how any meaningful vote could proceed that didn’t spell out the whole planned settlement. Besides, the planned settlement and the outcome are two very different things. Do we want the UK to have a rod in its back during the EU negotiations? I’m genuinely not sure what I think about that, to be honest.

    David Allan Green blogged quite a bit about this but he assumed until recently the UK would behave rationally. In his view, the rational response is to not trigger A50 and he believed only a low probability existed for ever leaving the EU. His reasoning is detailed and hard to fault except for this assumption of rationality. The stumbling block, which he has recently amended, is that rationality is not a priority here. He now thinks it is slightly more unlikely than likely we will leave the EU. In my view, all the government really have to do is triumphantly announce “Mission accomplished” like George Bush did in Iraq back in 2003. The press will definitely play along with that no matter what they deliver, as long as it is not at the soft end of Brexit. I just can’t seem them searching through thousands of pages of documentation to pick out future problems or weaknesses. “Britain is free”, “Independence day”, “Up yours, Delors”. “Britain for the British”. We all know exactly what that is going to look like.

    Our only hope here is independence because this whole thing is about English nationalism with a jug of stupidity thrown into the mix. What a mess!

    Sorry, I’ve ranted on much more than I meant to.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Jeez, what a bloody mess they have got us into.

      It seems to me that the origins of the referendum lay in the survival of the Tory Party in England.

      I seriously don’t think for a second that it would survive if there was no Brexit. (Not that I care about that!)

      But where would the likes of Fox and IDS and their followers go?

      To UKIP.

      Where would all the disillusioned Tory (and now Labour) voters go? Same place!

      I wonder if any would go to Labour as it continues, after two votes, to fall apart.

      As Les Cunningham points out in his excellent piece, it’s unlikely that EFTA would have the UK. In any case the costs of that are horrific.

      And what about all the people whose xenophobia has been stirred by the tabloid gutter press and latterly by the Tory Conference? Would there be riots in the streets?

      What would they do if Brexit never came and all the foreigners kept coming. Swarming, wasn’t it, Cameron said?

      You never really rant, Terry. You know your subject and your input is informative and interesting.

      Best get working on the robots though. We may be needing them for a lot of things in the near future, because i suspect we will be soon disastrously short of labour.


  4. “This is a very tricky area. In my view, it doesn’t make sense for the government to reveal their plans before negotiations begin. By necessity, they need to keep quite a lot secret so as not to weaken their negotiating position, which, anyway, will need to be fluid to some degree as negotiations proceed.”

    Whilst not disagreeing with you Terry can I politely nudge to remember what das Fuhrer and co. were all shouting at the then First Minister Alex Salmond before the independence referendum?

    As far as I’m concerned what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. In other words THEY all wanted to know what his plans were before the referendum in 2014 so by the same rules THEY must lay out their plans now before Article 50. … SIMPLES!

    p.s. I know Westminster play by a set of rules that are so secret no one actually knows what they are or where copies of them are kept.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I’s have thought their language, and their general direction of travel, spoke to the minority of fascists that seem to now rule the roost. There is nothing ‘tricky’ about this, it is a putch!

      Liked by 2 people

      1. To be honest Douglas I have stopped using the terms Tory, Tories, Conservative, Conservative and Unionist when discussing the fascists led from 10 Downing Street.

        I just call a spade a spade these days and come straight out with what they really are …. I call them Nazis … end of!

        Liked by 1 person

    2. That is an excellent point. Definitely something to remember if we get another go at independence.

      I hope I didn’t come across as some sort of Brexit or government apologist. I was really just putting myself in the mind-set of someone charged with completing the negotiations. It didn’t feel good at all, if that helps. A kind of sickly feeling churned my stomach and my head began to throb, while a sense of fear and anxiety overtook my normally sunny disposition. Oh dear. This is a terrible, terrible mess.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Well, that’s what you have to do, Terry. Put your head in the place of the heads that will negotiate.

        I’m errr, sorry about your sunny disposition being overtaken!!!!

        Wouldn’t have wanted that for the world!

        Liked by 1 person

  5. We have a sort of UK democratic election every 4/5 years to elect a government and once done,the two abiding principles of Westminster governance kick into play.
    Secrecy and Stealth.
    That is how they have always done business and will continue to do so unless forced to change by external influences.
    The principle of the Crown in Parliament where the government of the day can do what it likes without reference to elected representatives,is an affront to modern democracy and has no place in any union of nations where mutual understanding and consent are paramount.
    England now has no place in the European Union and no place in the UK union.
    It should now be a stand alone nation state with little ir no accountability to anyone else.
    Scotland is not an appendage of England.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Good points. In particular where under Scots law, underpinned by case law, the power of the crown is far less than in England. In short, the Queen in England is there by the Grace of God… and as such can, at least in theory, do what she will (or, in practice, what her ministers tell her to do). In Scotland she is obliged to do what WE tell her to do.


        1. There are good arguments for trying it.It was apparently, something that Micheal Forsyth warned them about. A Scottish parliament could be said to represent the will of the Scottish people. The queen wold not have the right to sign into legislation, anything that the Scottish parliament voted against. Of course the Tories are already all for what they were all against a few months ago. Would Labour and the Lib Dems suddenly find themselves doing a volte face of 180 degrees. Even if they did, if the SNP adn Greens held hard, we could overturn Scetxit. They would have to find a way of getting England and Wales (and possibly NI and Gibraltar) out but leaving us in!

          Tough job Mrs May, but you wanted it.


  6. My view is that May does not have a mandate to take the UK out of the single market in a hard Brexit.

    Now we have Maggie Mk2 as PM, and once again there is a whiff of elected dictatorship about Westminster.

    If you could travel back in time to late 1932, just before Hitler was elected to power, and tell ordinary Germans where the Nazis would lead Germany within a decade, would many of them believe you?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Very interesting post on your blog, Les.

      Of course, you’re right, it was an in/out choice on the ballot paper when, in fact the real choice was much more complex.

      I was reading your piece and nodding at each point.I seriously advise people to have a read.

      One point I’d make though, is that the information leaflet the UK government sent out to people before the referendum said quite clearly that the Government would implement the choice made by the people. No if’s no buts. This statement might hold some water in law.

      I completely agree that most of the options for soft Brexit are out of the question. Norway pays more per capita than the UK to be a semi detached member of the EU. Of course it needs no subsidies for farming or for the poor. It has more than enough money. But it, like Lichtenstein, Switzerland and Iceland, have to agree to free movement, and that, it seems will NEVER be tolerated in England at least. As you point out, on every single decision regarding trade , etc, Norway has no say, but must implement the decisions. I can’t see the Brits swallowing that. Not even Scots who have long argued that English ministers negotiate of behalf of them in Brussels.

      It will be an interesting argument, and given the marked difference between the vote north and south or the border and the fact that the law regarding the Queen’s prerogative is technically different in the two countries, who knows what the outcome of legal intervention will be.


  7. Back on topic.
    When negotiating its very useful to try and work out what the other party has that you might want. These should of course be things that are either unique or otherwise difficult to obtain. This gives insight and therefore bargaining power. So what are the main things the EU wants that the UK has…. let me see now
    1. Oil and Gas
    2. Vast fishing waters
    3. Whisky

    mmmm. I see a problem here!


    1. It would be interesting to have amongst the intelligent readership of Munguin’s Republic, a discussion about the refugee crisis.

      Of course it is massively complex, but a great big part of it is “the West” and it’s continual interference in the Middle East. Of course there is also the history of Africa , and the fact that climate change is having a more dramatic effect there than it is here, with a bit more rain and warmer periods in the summer.

      I’ll read the article. Thanks.


  8. Has anybody noticed that the EU has all its negotiating officials in place.

    All the UK has is the three Brexiteers. I heard they were offering £750k for a lead negotiator. Have they had any takers?

    Also, I noted a link to a Reuters item on Wings from Nana
    and this paragraph caught my eye.

    Juncker was clearer still about a need to be “intransigent” to counter British lobbying:
    “We cannot have whole sections of European industry conducting secret talks in darkened rooms behind closed doors with envoys of the British government.”

    Hardly behaviour that is likely to endear the UK to the EU27.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Lord knows we are badly served by the team that May has put together. Johnson, Fox and Davies seem to have little idea of what it’s all about. (Terry Entoure blog good for this.)

      Apparently Cameron forbade anyone in teh Civil Service to do anything at all to prepare for the possibility of Brexit. he was so determined in his privileged Eton Boy kind of way that it wouldn’t happen. (Bit sad for him that Boris was equally sure in his privileged Eton Boy sort of way, that it would!)

      Thanks for the links. I’m off to read them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s